Tim Just Calling the Question
samsloan
Everybody who has attended a USCF Delegates meeting has seen this
happen again and again. We reach an item on the agenda, one or two
people speak for or against it, and then Tim Just "calls the
question", which generally ends the discussion.
I think this is unfair and indeed insulting to the many delegates who
have traveled long distances at great expense just to attend these
meetings, often to speak to just one issue of great importance to that
delegate.
For example, Rachel Lieberman very rarely speaks at these meetings,
but she is always hard at work taking the minutes.
One time, she rose to speak on something she obviously thought was of
great importance, but just before her turn came at the mike, Tim Just
called the question.
Tim Just does this on purpose of course, cutting off people he does
not want to hear, while allowing others he favors to drone on
endlessly. I have seen him even laugh and giggle when he has caused
somebody to become visibly upset when that person has been cut off at
the mike by Tim Just.
Since Tim Just is the only one who does this on a regular basis, I
think that a rule should be made that one person can only call the
question a certain number of times.
We can call this the "Anti-Tim Just Rule".
Sam Sloan
samsloan
question has been called. Is there objection to calling the
question?" If there is no objection, then the issue moves to a
vote. If there is any objection, then a vote is taken on the motion
to call the question, with a 2/3 majority required to pass. If there
is not a 2/3 majority, then debate continues on the motion on the
floor. `
That's consistent with Roberts Rules of Order and with best practices
as recommended by organizations like the National Association of
Parliamentarians.
At a guess, about half the time in Delegates meetings, no objection is
raised to calling the question. (In fact, at the 2009 meeting, I
think that there were quite a few motions where after a few speakers
nobody was at either mike, so the chair just proceeded with the
vote.)
In fact, the USCF has one significant departure from RRO with regards
to calling the question, the person making the motion cannot have
spoken to the issue in that turn at the mike.
Mike Nolan [/quote]
That is the procedure followed at these meetings. These votes take a
long time and often it would be quicker just to let the people speak.
They are after all delegates representing the USCF members in their
home states.
I do not have any statistics, but I would say that on at least 50% of
the agenda items, Tim Just calls the question. This makes Tim Just the
person who speaks the most frequently at any delegate's meeting.
Fortunately, his speeches are short, since he just calls the question.
I am fairly certain that the rule Mike Nolan cites, that if one speaks
to the substance of an issue he cannot then immediately call the
question, thereby giving himself the last word, is a rule made to stop
Tim Just from doing just that.
I do not know how long Tim Just has been doing this, but he has done
it at ever meeting I have attended since 1996 and he was already known
for doing it well before that time.
I say, we have given too much justice to Tim Just.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
to be counted, a vote only takes 20-30 seconds. It's usually pretty
clear whether or not there is a 2/3 majority.
I believe the rule limiting the speaker to speaking either to the
substance of the motion or calling the question dates back to when
others were the ones likely to call the question, not Tim.
Under Roberts Rules, when someone has the floor that person can make
ANY motion that is in order, including moving the previous question
(aka calling the question), regardless of whether or not he or she has
spoken to the merits of the issue on the floor.
In other words, the USCF's special rule of order is already more
restrictive of a Delegate's right to speak in debate than the one in
Roberts Rules of Order.
Make up your mind, Sam. Do you want the USCF to become even more
restrictive of a Delegate's rights in debate or to allow more debate?
You seem to want it both ways.
Mike Nolan [/quote]
What I want of course is both more debate and more diversity in
debate. I want more different points of view to be allowed to be
represented.
For example, there are people who speak on almost every issue and
these are often the people who know the least of anybody of the
subject of which they are speaking.
Then there are those who rarely or never say anything. I would like to
give those people the green light so that when they do finally want to
speak they cannot be blocked.
There should be a better way than having Tim Just call the question
all the time. For example, let everybody speak one time for three
minutes. After everybody who wants to speak has had their three
minutes, then Tim Just is allowed to call the question.
Suppose somebody has something so important to say that it will change
every vote, and yet cannot speak because Tim Just has called the
question.
Here is an example of what could happen:
At a USCF board meeting in about 2001 the board voted to spend $10,000
or some similar amount to send a team to the World Team Championships.
I reported this in one of my Spam emails.
John Donaldson then wrote me that this was improper because the World
Team Championship was not being held that year and that next year,
when it was being held, the USA was not qualified to play because of
having had a poor result in the previous Olympiad.
Now, suppose this had happened at a delegate's meeting. John Donaldson
rises to tell the delegates that no such event is being held this year
but, before he can speak, Tim Just calls the question, thereby
preventing Donaldson from speaking.
What then?
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Majority". Many delegates are only interested in one issue, their own.
If given a choice, they will vote everyone else down and only
themselves will be allowed to speak.
Here is a practical example:
Suppose the USCF raises the TLA fees and drives an organizer out of
business. An organizer becomes a delegate and attends the USCF
delegate's meeting. He intends to tell the delegates that the fees are
too high. He cannot pay them and if the fees are not reduced back to
what they previously were, he will go out of business and take up
bridge.
The delegate rises to speak but just before his turn at the mike, Tim
Just calls the question and therefore the delegate does not get to
speak.
The delegate, filled with disgust, goes back home and never organizes
another chess tournament again.
This is of course not an imaginary example. This actually happened in
2001. The Manhattan Chess Club went out of business because the TLA
fees were raised so high that they could not afford to pay them. Prior
to that, the Manhattan held two rated tournaments per day. TLA fees
were later reduced back down to what they had been previously, but by
that time the Manhattan Chess Club had completely shut down. It never
restarted.
Another example is the 1998 US Open in Hawaii. Many delegates traveled
all the way to Hawaii just to speak in favor of OMOV. By parliamentary
trick, the motion was tabled before the debate was even allowed to
start. Many delegates were and still are extremely angry about this.
This has never been forgotten.
Sam Sloan
jkh001
More Sloonacy. Tim Just can't "call the question." He can /make a
motion/ to call the question, Two thirds of the Delegates have to
agree. What you seem to be whining about is that not even a third of
the Delegates are generally willing to listen to you rave. My nose
bleeds for you.
samsloan
> More Sloonacy. Tim Just can't "call the question." He can /make a
> motion/ to call the question, Two thirds of the Delegates have to
> agree. What you seem to be whining about is that not even a third of
> the Delegates are generally willing to listen to you rave. My nose
> bleeds for you.
Hillery rarely attends these meetings. He has attended only two that I
can recall since I have been coming.
I do not recall Tim Just ever calling the question on me.
What he does do is watch the delegates as they line up at the mikes.
Tim Just generally knows what the delegates are going to say and how
long they will speak. So he calculates and gets in line so that he
will be able to call the question at right the moment.
Some times I have seen him tell someone that he favors to go ahead and
speak even though that person is behind him in line.
So, Tim Just manipulates the lines, picking and choosing the moment
when he is going to strike and call the question.
I just wonder why he gets such a thrill by manipulating and
controlling the meetings in this way. Does he not have anything better
to do with his life?
Sam Sloan
Offramp
> Since this has been brought up, I think we should discuss it.
Well, I don't. I'm going to put the question.
jkh001
Once again, Sam, since you seem unable to comprehend sixth-grade
English: Calling the question requires a 2/3 vote of the body. The
fact that 2/3 of the Delegates agree with Tim Just (or whoever) that
debate should be closed rather than with you and the others who want
to keep talking is just too bad. Your quarrel isn't with Tim Just;
it's with the vast majority who think you're a tiresome jerk. I'd
suggest the obvious remedy, but I'm afraid you lost that one forty or
fifty years ago.
Of course, this probably won't be a problem in future, since we voted
to go back to having Delegates appointed by the State Chapters
starting in 2011. I find it hard to believe that any State Chapter
would be foolish enough to give you a spot. Unlike the general
membership, they know who you are.
samsloan
> Once again, Sam, since you seem unable to comprehend sixth-grade
> English: Calling the question requires a 2/3 vote of the body. The
> fact that 2/3 of the Delegates agree with Tim Just (or whoever) that
> debate should be closed rather than with you and the others who want
> to keep talking is just too bad. Your quarrel isn't with Tim Just;
> it's with the vast majority who think you're a tiresome jerk. I'd
> suggest the obvious remedy, but I'm afraid you lost that one forty or
> fifty years ago.
>
> Of course, this probably won't be a problem in future, since we voted
> to go back to having Delegates appointed by the State Chapters
> starting in 2011. I find it hard to believe that any State Chapter
> would be foolish enough to give you a spot. Unlike the general
> membership, they know who you are.
John Hillery seems to be overlooking the fact that I was elected.
John Hillery has never been elected to anything.
Sam Sloan
Rob
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent Post!
samsloan
<mike.g...@att.net> wrote:
> Dear Sam,
>
> I think that Tim Just has stopped calling the question. This is history.
> Why dredge up the past?
>
> Mike
Dear Mike,
I believe that you are mistaken. At the most recent meeting at
Indianapolis Tim Just was still calling the question, perhaps not
quite so aggressively or as quickly as in past years, but still often
enough to lead to complaints.
Chess players are not going to be willing to attend these delegate
meetings if they are cut off at the mike and not allowed to speak. I
know that you come to the US Open primarily to play chess, but a
significant number of the delegates just come to the meetings just to
speak and to say their peace and never move a pawn.
I also question the fact that Tim Just has made himself the self-
appointed caller of the question. Why cannot he allow the Chairman to
regulate the meetings, rather than himself?
By the way, this is not a personal issue with me. I have never known
Tim Just to call the question to stop me from speaking. Just just does
it to everybody.
Sam Sloan
Rob
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:49 AM, KENNETH GOODALL
>
Why should Robert's Rules of Order be applied to chess? Why should any
rules be applied to SlimySloan?
samsloan
I have attended almost every USCF delegates' meeting for the past 14
years.
At every one of those meetings, Tim Just has "called the question"
over and over again repeatedly.
He even laughs and giggles when somebody (usually somebody new) gets
angry at being cut off at the mike because Tim Just has called the
question.
At least, it is commendable that Tim Just has attended every USCF
delegates' meeting for at least the last 14 years.
Also, a little appreciated fact is that Tim Just is the USCF's
official registered agent in the State of Illinois, where the USCF is
incorporated.
However, thinking about that, does the USCF pay his expenses to
attend all these meetings, or does Tim Just come at his own expense,
as the other delegates do?
Sam Sloan
samsloan
does the USCF pay his own expenses to attend all these meetings, or
does Tim Just come at his own expense, as the other delegates do?
Sam Sloan
[color=#0000BF]Inquiring minds want to know?! Perhaps you can file a
lawsuit to find out? Was it not your original lawsuit that got the
ball rolling on our current legal troubles? I suspect you are simply
upset because when you send legal papers to me (Tim Just) I make you
resend those papers to Tim Just, USCF Registered Agent (as one lawyer
pointed out to me Tim Just and Tim Just, USCF registered agent are two
different legal entities). Tim Just has nothing to do with your USCF
legal papers. Tim Just, USCF Registered Agent has everything to do
with your USCF legal papers. [/color]
Tim Just
[/quote][/quote]
I note that Tim Just did not answer the question of whether he has
paid his own way to attend every USCF delegates' meeting for the last
more than 20 years, or has the USCF paid his expenses?
It is not merely inquiring minds who want to know. We, the USCF
membership, have a right to know how our money is being spent.
Tim Just has another extremely generous deal. From what I understand,
he gets a royalty of either 10% or 8% on every copy of the USCF's
Official Rules of Chess that are sold.
This was one of the bonehead deals made by George DeFeis during his
infamous tenure as USCF Executive Director.
I was told at the time that Tim Just had voluntarily agreed to give up
and forgo the royalty he was to receive on the Official USCF Rules of
Chess. However, more recently an insider told me that Tim Just is
still getting a royalty check for every time a copy of the USCF's
Rules of Chess is sold, and the money involved is significant.
Is this true or not, Tim?
Sam Sloan
Rob
>
> More Sloonacy. Tim Just can't "call the question." He can /make a
> motion/ to call the question, Two thirds of the Delegates have to
> agree. What you seem to be whining about is that not even a third of
> the Delegates are generally willing to listen to you rave. My nose
>
> - Show quoted text -
Advanced procedure for removing Sloan from USCF:
madams
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:49 AM, KENNETH GOODALL
> <mike.g...@att.net> wrote:
> > Dear Sam,
> >
> > I think that Tim Just has stopped calling the question. This is history.
> > Why dredge up the past?
> >
> > Mike
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> I believe that you are mistaken. At the most recent meeting at
> Indianapolis Tim Just was still calling the question, perhaps not
> quite so aggressively or as quickly as in past years, but still often
> enough to lead to complaints.
>
> Chess players are not going to be willing to attend these delegate
> meetings if they are cut off at the mike and not allowed to speak.
=====================
Sam, Sam pls, do you not think that this : UPDATED 8:06 a.m.
Related content
Latest: Death count rises
Time gap in investigation of rape complaint against Anthony Sowell
questioned
Police discover 11 victims at Anthony Sowell's home
Cleveland serial murders continue to draw media's, bloggers' attention
Despite criticism, police said they worked hard to bring Sowell to
justice
Anthony Sowell's neighbors wonder how stench of rotting bodies went
undetected for years
Sowell's violent past offers glimpse of accused rapist suspected of mass
murder
Phillip Morris: A serial killer apparently works best in a silent city
Photos: Police, neighbors at Imperial Ave. crime scene
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/crews_again_digging_at_anthony.html
Video: Police and neighbor talk about Anthony Sowell case
Anthony Sowell: Read more on suspected serial killer
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Police have discovered four bodies and the remains of
a fifth this afternoon at the home of Anthony Sowell, bringing the total
body count to 11.
Sowell's home on Imperial Avenue now ranks among the deadliest crime
scenes in Cleveland history.
Sowell, 50, was charged with five counts of aggravated murder even as
workers continued finding more bodies in his back yard.
A heated tent is being installed in the back yard so crews can work
through the night.
Police, coroner and fire personnel are at the home, along with a dump
truck.
Police have scheduled a news conference for 6 p.m. Crews started digging
this afternoon, two days after they had stopped searching for bodies.
Sowell is being held on suspicion of murder after police found six
decomposing bodies in his home. The bodies were scattered througout the
home, including buried in a shallow grave in the basement, in crawl
spaces and left in the home.
A search warrant obtained over the weekend gave police permission take
apart the home brick by brick if necessary, police sources said.
====================
...is a trifle more relevant ?? ..I'm sorry Sam, I know what you're
gonna come up with, but really.... the fact that 'murika is once again
hosting some gross crime is surely of more interest than itty bitty
barging & pushing over who's turn it is @ the "mike" for chrissakes -
just so you know 'n all ...
m.
jkh001
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:49 AM, KENNETH GOODALL
>
Well, Sam, if you had bothered to read RRO, you would realize that the
Chairman cannot cut off debate. He can't even make motions, though
that's often evaded.
But let's back up a step. Even if, /arguendo/, everything you've
claimed in this thread is true (e.g. Tim Just is an evil genius who
tries to cut off debate at a time of his choosing), why exactly is
this bad? An awful lot of people who want to speak at the Delegates'
Meeting are pompous windbags enamored of the sound of their own
voices. (Well, you, of course, but you're not the only one.) Ending
debate before these people can bore us further seems like a public
service. Any Delegate who comes to the meeting "just to speak and to
say their peace (sic)" probably ought to have his voice box removed.
They can still vote by show of hands.
jkh001
Yes, Sam. You were elected by the general membership, which a) mostly
doesn't know who you are, and b) has the inevitable number of nutcases
to be found in any large group. You know, dregs at the bottom of the
normal distribution curve. How many times did you get elected to
anything when the choice fell to people who knew you were a nitwit?
How many of those times at the Delegates' Meetings were you picked up
on waivers by some state that couldn't fill its roster? How many
states would be stupid enough to do that again after your year on the
EB disgracing the USCF?
BTW, I was elected a Delegate last year. Were you? I seem to recall
you in Indianapolis cowering outside the door begging for scraps of
information.
samsloan
simply answer the questions?
Several possible answers would be perfectly satisfactory.
For example, as to the question of whether the USCF has paid his
expenses to attend every USCF delegates' meeting for the past 20
years, Tim Just could say:
(a) No. I paid my own expenses, or he could say
(b) Yes. The USCF paid my expenses, and rightly so. After all, I am
the USCF's registered agent for service of process and every time
somebody sues the USCF, I have to go up and hide in the mountains
until the process server goes away, so I should be compensated
As to the question of whether Tim Just receives an 8% to 10% royalty
for every copy sold of the USCF's Official Rules of Chess, Tim Just
could say:
(a) No. I do not receive any royalty payments or
(b) Yes, indeed I do. I am entitled to be paid for my work. I spent
two years as Chairman of the Tournament Directors Qualification
Committee working on this revision of the rule book and I should be
paid for that.
Any of the above answers would be satisfactory and many would agree.
Instead, Tim Just just says "Prove it Prove it", without answering
these simple questions.
Sam Sloan
[quote="Tim Just"][quote="samsloan"][quote="Tim Just"]
[quote="samsloan"]However, thinking about that, does the USCF pay his
own expenses to attend all these meetings, or does Tim Just come at
his own expense, as the other delegates do?
[color=#0000BF]Inquiring minds want to know?! Perhaps you can file a
lawsuit to find out? Was it not your original lawsuit that got the
ball rolling on our current legal troubles? I suspect you are simply
upset because when you send legal papers to me (Tim Just) I make you
resend those papers to Tim Just, USCF Registered Agent (as one lawyer
pointed out to me Tim Just and Tim Just, USCF registered agent are two
different legal entities). Tim Just has nothing to do with your USCF
legal papers. Tim Just, USCF Registered Agent has everything to do
with your USCF legal papers. [/color][/quote][/quote]
I note that Tim Just did not answer the question of whether he has
paid his own way to attend every USCF delegates' meeting for the last
more than 20 years, or has the USCF paid his expenses?
[color=#0000BF]Prove it--it is not true so I challenge you to prove
it. [/color]
It is not merely inquiring minds who want to know. We, the USCF
membership, have a right to know how our money is being spent.
Tim Just has another extremely generous deal. From what I understand,
he gets a royalty of either 10% or 8% on every copy of the USCF's
Official Rules of Chess that are sold.
[color=#0000BF]Prove it--you have the contract in your hand. You
published it. Please read it.[/color]
This was one of the bonehead deals made by George DeFeis during his
infamous tenure as USCF Executive Director.
I was told at the time that Tim Just had voluntarily agreed to give up
and forgo the royalty he was to receive on the Official USCF Rules of
Chess. However, more recently an insider told me that Tim Just is
still getting a royalty check for every time a copy of the USCF's
Rules of Chess is sold, and the money involved is significant.
Is this true or not, Tim?
[color=#0000BF]Prove it--you have the contract in your hand. You
published it. Please read it.[/color][/quote][/quote]
Matt Nemmers
We note Sloan didn't answer John Hillery's question.
Rob
>
> - Show quoted text -
samsloan
> We note Sloan didn't answer John Hillery's question.
What question did he ask?
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Being elected as a delegate is meaningless. Usually there are fewer
candidates than there are spaces to be filled.
I doubt that John Hillery would beat anybody in a contested election.
Your foul mouth is well known.
I was elected in an election where I defeated two highly recognized
and touted insider candidates. By electing me, the voters sent a clear
message that they were tired of insider self dealing. The voters knew
exactly who and what they were voting for.
Sam Sloan
You Know Who
Which of the four would you like to have REPEATED for you?
You Know Who
Yes. The Executive Board of the United States CHESS Federation is
MUCH more prestigious.
> Your foul mouth is well known.
LMAO. Sam Sloan accusing someone of having a "foul mouth" is like
Brett Favre accusing someone of being indecisive.
> I was elected in an election where I defeated two highly recognized
> and touted insider candidates.
LOL.
> By electing me, the voters sent a clear
> message
They most certainly did. That message was: WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
FUCK WE'RE DOING.
> The voters knew exactly who and what they were voting for.
Obviously not. Your expulsion is evidence enough.
Eat glass, moron.
jkh001
In our state, we always nominate a minimum of twice as many people as
the number of positions available. You'd know that, of course, if you
weren't an ignorant buffoon. No point in wishing for the impossible,
though.
> I doubt that John Hillery would beat anybody in a contested election.
> Your foul mouth is well known.
That one is actually pretty funny, Sam. Your stench precedes you.
> I was elected in an election where I defeated two highly recognized
> and touted insider candidates. By electing me, the voters sent a clear
> message that they were tired of insider self dealing. The voters knew
> exactly who and what they were voting for.
>
> Sam Sloan
Uh huh. That would explain why you've received successively fewer
votes in each election since then. In case it's escaped your puny
little brain (damaged by all those pharmaceuticals you consumed at
Berkeley, no doubt), the reason you won in 2006 was that two other
candidates split the sane-people vote. That left enough loonies and
dupes to for you to squeak in. The loonies are still on your side.
But maybe we're being to hard on poor Sam. He clearly suffers from
delusions of adequacy.
samsloan
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 vilipendio.investici.org
C2E9912C3BD
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=remailer.gabrix.ath.cx; s=stigmate; t=1257521609; bh=P0DQGFN/VozJ
Ae1YGR8PK5ON5c+9u3aXDEdIRBIxobw=; h=From:To:Subject:References:
Message-ID:Date; b=JnHjq3ie2TEtfv6+rToItNpe1WmcM7ooiyd0gbpHBWA7BWp
lPrFJiiMZ6iPddUG6BTtXuFDdi+D48aXOvT4hSVZBc0JaCcDyX6sXHFQ68IjXHw3Ypv
aSI18PS0DW2LYPWIiFcf4SA/5YEetYVJxHdlZRDZGPBiwP4gLa23qRdtY=
From: noauth <a...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>
Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address
above.
It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
remailer administrator at <a...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>.
Subject: Re: Tim Just Calling the Question
X-No-Archive: yes
References: <8cc8cac2-9e32-40ec-
a685-58a...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <fda2eee18089de58...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:33:53 +0100 (CET)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-
media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!
news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.bananasplit.info!
mail2news.mixmin.net
X-Abuse-Contact: ab...@mixmin.net
Lines: 26
On Nov 4, 1:58 am, jkh001 <jkh...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 5:57 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Does he not have anything better to do with his life?
> >
> > Sam Sloan
> Your quarrel isn't with Tim Just; it's with the vast majority who
> think you're a tiresome jerk.
That hardly does their feelings justice, now, does it?
> Unlike the general membership, they know who you are.
It isn't that they know WHO Sam is, it is that they know WHAT Sam is.
It isn't like you to get a word wrong, John!
Heard about the latest developments with the last Mrs. S? Someone may
or should try to get the National Enquirer interested in the 'tail'.
More than merely misdemeanors, more than merely unlawful notarizing...
much more. Unraveling the Life and Times of the Sloon (and Wives) -
it needs an ace journalist to repackage the whole bag of excrement, to
make it readable by those with goldfish-level attention spans. Would
you happen to know an ace journalist, John? :)
The Masked Bishop
and forgo the royalty he was to receive on the Official USCF Rules of
Chess. However, more recently an insider told me that Tim Just is
still getting a royalty check for every time a copy of the USCF's
Rules of Chess is sold, and the money involved is significant. <
If Tim Just can manage to eke out a payment every time that turd of a
tome comes off a shelf, POWER TO HIM.
Anyone with half a brain can pull the "Rules of Chess" from the
Internet, should they decide to dispute that the weenie across the
board at their local hotel tournament, lodged pathetically in the
smallest meeting room the Hampton has to offer, touched his piece
between nose picks.
TMB
The Masked Bishop
Rules of Chess is sold, and the money involved is significant.<
I'd guess several hundred thousand dollars a year, and that doesn't
include movie rights -- Scorsese has show real interest.
Last I checked, Tim had cleverly moved his haul into swiss francs,
from his satellite-linked laptop while soaking in his rook-shaped hot
tub, outside his penthouse apartment, which has a REALLY nice view of
the Chicago skyline...I was there, he was even cackling while he
uploaded the account to his forex broker in Geneva.
So yes, a few of us have managed to live like far Eastern potentates
on the backs of the rest of you...every time you push a pawn at one of
those over-priced Opens, that's another order of crab louis for me at
the Four Seasons....suckers...
help bot
> > Tim Just is still getting a royalty check for every time a copy of the USCF's
> > Rules of Chess is sold, and the money involved is significant.
> I'd guess several hundred thousand dollars a year, and that doesn't
> include movie rights -- Scorsese has show real interest.
>
> Last I checked, Tim had cleverly moved his haul into swiss francs,
> from his satellite-linked laptop while soaking in his rook-shaped hot
> tub, outside his penthouse apartment, which has a REALLY nice view of
> the Chicago skyline...I was there, he was even cackling while he
> uploaded the account to his forex broker in Geneva.
Hot tubs? Skylines? Satellite hook-ups? All
well and good, old boy... but how's he doing where
it really counts? You didn't mention any BABES!
> So yes, a few of us have managed to live like far Eastern potentates
> on the backs of the rest of you...every time you push a pawn at one of
> those over-priced Opens, that's another order of crab louis for me at
> the Four Seasons....suckers...
One notes that these "suckers" to which you
have referred are mainly tournament directors
and their ilk, regular guys not bothering to read
the official rules at all, but just wingin' it.
Anyway, I now believe I have a handle on why
there have been so many seemingly-random
rules changes over the years; it was so there
would be a need for a revised edition-- and
more royalties.
Too bad fellows like Mr. Sloan cannot write
fascinating page-turners like the official rules
of chess. It seems that certain people are
doomed to perpetually wallow in jealousy of
those who "have it", since they just don't. I
remember years ago reading the whining of
Larry Parr, screetching each time he learned
that one of the other associates of the USCF
had gotten some perk or other, which he ne-
ver got. One is reminded of spoiled children,
squabbling over some toy... .
-- help bot
The Masked Bishop
babes...I think three in the tub with him while he was negotiating the
swiss franc exchange. And one of them was a fide master...
--TMB
help bot
Don't be silly-- babes can't play good chess.
And that cackling you thought you heard while
he was in the tub? That was the sound of a
man receiving a mild electric shock -- and rightly
so -- due to playing with his laptop computer
while immersed in impure water (a conductor).
Swiss francs... that's old-think. The new SF is
the Chinese yuan or renmembi (one a currency,
the other a dance; I can't recall which is which).
You see, while the Swiss are just sitting there,
eating holey cheeses, the Chinese are in fast
motion-- like Alan Ladd in a movie fight scene.
Hmm... make that like Bruce Lee, armed with
numchucks. While the American IRS has with
some success forced the Swiss Banks to cave,
forking over closely-guarded information regard-
ing its American depositors, this sort of strong
arm tactic simply never worked on Bruce Lee
(or Alan Ladd, now that I think about it).
Remember the guy with the scar on his face
in Enter the Dragon? Well, that's what would
have happened to the IRS, had it attempted to
"muscle" Bruce Lee, or mess with his cousin's
family restaurant. Even underhanded tactics,
which may well be the norm for these IRS guys,
would simply backfire, just as in the movie.
Only three babes in the tub with him? Poor,
poor man. If I recall correctly, James Coburn
had seven, despite his important research with
dolphins-- which took up much of his time and
energy. Or was it eight?
-- help bot