Subject: Re: The decimation of Chess Life.
Author: TOMDORSCH (firstname.lastname@example.org)
"I opposed the decision. As I have stated many times on this forum, degradation of services is poor strategy while membership is declining. I disagree with Goichberg's view that the membership won't notice or complain about the cuts; I believe they are much smarter than he realizes.
"There are other areas where cuts could have been made with no impact on services, such as rescinding a change in the discount on books and eliminating international travel to FIDE meetings for PB members who are not on our FIDE delegation.
Subject: Re: The decimation of Chess Life.
Author: Sam Sloan (email@example.com)
"I am also intrigued by this statement.
"Can you please cite a specific instance or instances where a Policy Board member was given a free trip by the USCF to a FIDE meeting who was not a member of the USCF Delegation.
"As far as I know, only the US delegate (one person) is entitled to a free trip. The zone president should of course have his trip paid for by FIDE, since he is a FIDE official, not a USCF official.
So far, Tom Dorsch has not replied to my question. It is obvious that this is just another Dorsch lie. During the time of the current Policy Board, the USCF has never paid for tickets to FIDE meetings for PB members who are not on our FIDE delegation.
What happened on previous policy boards is another matter. When I was at the 1986 Dubai Olympiad, I found it objectionable that the USCF had sent Doyle, Sperling, Schultz and Denker by first class to the FIDE meeting (whereas I went at no cost to them), and I said so in a newspaper article I wrote which was published in the Gulf News. No other country sent so many political representatives. Parr suggests that the comment by Dorsch pertains to a trip by Carol Jarecki and Don Schultz to Rio, but that happened years ago, long before the current policy board took office, plus Carol Jarecki has never been on the policy board, nor has she ever represented the USA at a FIDE meeting.
So, was Dorsch telling just another of his many lies, or does he have some basis for his claims?
Subject: Re: Another Example of a Truth by Tom Dorsch
On 21 Jun 1999 19:37:45 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (TOMDORSCH) wrote:
>eliminating international travel to FIDE meetings for PB members who
>are not on our FIDE delegation
> Parr suggests that the comment by Dorsch pertains to a trip by
> Carol Jarecki and Don Schultz to Rio,
He he. I love it when Sam can answer his own questions and prove I am right.
He says it never happened and that I was lying. The proof shows, as always, that I was perfectly right, it did happen, and that Sam finds himself out of the loop again.
Sam is a perfect set-up man. I'm reminded of Muhammad Ali's statement about Joe Frazier at the Thrilla in Manilla: "Joe's so easy to hit he gets made when you miss!"
And Sam, don't post things like my suggestion for a rollback in the B/E discount. You are destroying the myth that I never make suggestions on how to cure our financial ills! You better stick to the mantra (Dorsch has no ideas; Dorsch has no ideas; Dorsch, etc.)
I was hoping somebody else would respond to this ridiculous posting by our trusty treasurer, but nobody has come forward, so I must.
Please note, Dorsch does not answer my question and he cut out the rest of my sentence which said "That happened years ago, long before the current policy board took office".
Moreover, Carol Jarecki does not represent the USA. Carol Jarecki represents Captain Hook and his British Virgin Islands.
I do wonder about the story told by Parr for the course that the USCF paid for a trip by Carol to Rio. How did that happen (if it did happen), since she represented Captain Hook? Also, since they don't play much chess in Rio, why would she be going there anyway?
The main point is that Dorsch said that the USCF paid for international travel to FIDE meetings for PB members who are not on our FIDE delegation.
He was not complaining about paying for Cavallo to go to Moscow (assuming he did go to Moscow) or paying for Schiller to go to Spain. Dorsch was complaining about the PB authorizing themselves to go on international trips at membership expense.
It has been pointed out that by bringing to an end the Stan Vaughan litigation, Cavallo also brought to an end the practice by USCF officials of flying to Las Vegas for "hearings" on the Stan Vaughan matter at USCF expense.
I tend to doubt stan's assertion that Dorsch and Sloan are secret allies. I certainly have to admit that this newsgroup is far too confusing for me.
On 22 Jun 1999 02:12:40 GMT, email@example.com (TOMDORSCH) wrote:
>The main point is that Dorsch said that the USCF paid for
>international travel to FIDE meetings for PB members who are not on
>our FIDE delegation.
Sam, how can you be so dense? The answer is in what you posted. The trip described to Rio de Janeiro took place on the last PB. Schultz was on that PB. Duh--get it now?
I stated *the policy* that you repeated here, that PB members who are not members of our FIDE delegation should not travel to FIDE meetings at USCF expense. Schultz went, but he paid his own way, using frequent flyer miles accumulated during his USCF service.
Obviously, Schultz completely agreed with the wisdom of my policy statement. You seem to agree with me too. The USCF saves money.
Does it get any better than that?
My Home Page