FIDE Election for President

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Let us know when you figure it out.

Looks like we'll be discussing a different presidential campaign soon.

[Sasha Starr]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Let us know when you figure it out.

Thank you, Gary, I'm trying to get a feel what's required to improve the present situation. Or everybody's happy with the present state of affairs and there is no desire to make things better.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Jimmy Carter reported a UFO sighting and reported it. You can google it.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case294.htm

That was before they elected him U.S. president.

The truth is out there.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

But is it by aliens, Vlad. ;^)

Jimmy Carter reported a UFO sighting and reported it. You can google it.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case294.htm

That was before they elected him U.S. president.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

But is it by aliens, Vlad. ;^)

Probably a droid army.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

I'm wondering if CFC's being served well by its present leadership, especially by a President with so many shortcomings - read his posts...

Let us know when you figure it out.

[Sasha Starr]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Nobody's arguing that CFC has to vote for a candidate percieved delivering the biggest benefits to Canadian chess. And what exactly these benefits were for Canada in the 20 years of KI's rule?

[Sasha Starr]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

In spite of KI's 20 years leadership (or because of it) the status of chess in the World is comparable probably to... darts. Is there anything KI could have done better, differently, or this is all the chess actually deserves?

[Ken Craft]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

But is it by aliens, Vlad. ;^)

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Is the CFC discussion board down? I can't seem to access it.

It is down.

A communications disruption can only mean one thing - invasion.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

I hate to tell you this, Paul, but I mostly ignore your posts too. Life's too short. Try using fewer words, and they might have more impact.

Where is a 'like' button? :)

[Sasha Starr]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

I'm wondering if CFC's being served well by its present leadership, especially by a President with so many shortcomings - read his posts...

[John Coleman]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

... I see from another post that Vlad has put me on his ignore list. ...I think in chess they call that a resignation.

I hate to tell you this, Paul, but I mostly ignore your posts too. Life's too short. Try using fewer words, and they might have more impact.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Is the CFC discussion board down? I can't seem to access it.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

You are not a CFC member. You have also shown yourself to be someone that I shouldn't take too seriously because either you have some poor reading comprehension skills or you are being intentionally dishonest. It is already clear that you are hoping for money from Sid. You are not yet at the point where I am going to plonk you because you sometimes raise interesting points but you are heading in that direction...
.
.
.
Sid never made any serious offer of sponsorship. His offer was IF the CFC votes for and endorses candidate Kasparov in the FIDE elections and IF Kasparov wins he MIGHT get involved in Canadian chess sponsorship again. Clearly Kasparov had to win in the FIDE election in order for there to be a prospect of sponsorship...
.
.
.

What I have done at the CFC is to try to institute a new order of things. I have tried to respond to people when they ask for help in resolving issues. I have tried to impose a different style of operating.
.
.
.
You are complaining because I am taking seriously what the government tells me my job as a director and president entails, what the law requires. In your world, I am supposed to do whatever someone with money demands of me on the off chance that it will result in sponsorship dollars. I felt that I and at least one of the members of the executive was treated with disrespect because of the perceived power imbalances in the relationship. You and some others seem to think that my job is to play the part of some desperate supplicant beggar who hasn't had a meal in three days and needs those crumbs to survive. Here we are not even talking about crumbs. At best it is a photo of a slice of bread.

It looks like my blunt talk may have hurt some feelings and if that is the case then I am sorry. Sometimes you have to be heavy handed.

Let me start by saying your second last sentence is effectively the apology to Sid that I was asking for, except Sid isn't here to see it. I think you need to reach out to him and make that apology. But then you ruin it with the last sentence, in which you imply Sid deserved what you gave him, and that is absolutely not the case. You are still talking about his 'demands' and in this post:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...0484#post80484

I show there never were any demands. YOU are the one guilty of poor reading comprehension or deliberate dishonesty. I also expose the ridiculous double standard you applied to render your judgement against Sid and treat him the way you did. The truth hurts, man. Go ahead and 'plonk' me to get even, if it will make you feel good. But it won't change the facts.

Further:

One doesn't have to be a CFC member to care about the CFC. There are some people, such as Jean Hebert in the past, who tried portraying me as against standard chess, even hateful of it. Absolutely the opposite is the case. I will be launching a venture in which standard chess constitutes 'healthy competition'. What's good for standard chess is generally good for my venture, and in fact my venture is partially meant to rejuvenate standard chess (by bringing money into it through osmosis, and by helping the organizations that run it see that they are being too rigid in this technological age). So let's just make it clear that I do want what is good for standard chess, worldwide.

I don't deny that Sid would appear to make a great investor in my venture, simply because he knows chess. But my venture is already moving along and I have every expectation of a major success with or without any particular investor. If you're suggesting that all my posts on this thread are meant to woo Sid Belzberg, you are sadly mistaken. I know you're desperate to 'plonk' me because I hit a nerve with you, exposing your ill-advised post to Tom O'Donnell that at least makes you appear to be one who can read an email and be immediately influenced, and further, insulting Tom O'Donnell by saying he could as easily be influenced just by seeing emails. Tom has diplomatically not responded to your insult.

You were also exposed in this way by Nigel Hanrahan of all people in another thread,

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...9784#post79784

where you read some news report on the Ukraine situation and reported it as proof of something you believed all along. I think you wrote "the evidence looks pretty compelling" or some such remark...only to have Nigel expose it as a fraud. Plonk! You had to eat crow on that one. It just seems you can be all too easily swayed by simply reading something that agrees with your built up biases. And please don't tell us you have no biases. The climate change thread made it quite clear you do.

Great people acknowledge their weaknesses and correct them. Here in this thread, you have instead been focusing attention on yourself as some altruistic wunderkind, a workaholic messiah for Canadian chess, guided by purity blah blah blah... and you continue that diversionary tactic in the above post. This is a trait that I have always abhorred in people, and whenever Jean Hebert tried it (which was often), I attacked it with a vengeance. In your case, it may well be that you are motivated just the way you say you are. The problem is that when it comes down to brass tacks, you blunder. What you did with Sid was a total blunder.

Whatever you may think of the CFC, it is a business. It needs sponsors to deliver the best results to its customers. Sponsors have a right to make requests in return for their sponsorship. You have an equal right to refuse their money, but since the CFC is so desperately in need of good sponsors, you should recognize that there is an extra level of responsibility on you to account to the membership for rejecting a sponsor. Any requests or demands are not in and of themselves evil. You can't expect money for nothing, even if a rare few will make a gift.

Would you loan money to a stranger without asking for interest? In that scenario, do you consider it evil to ask for interest?

What everyone needs to recognize is that THERE WERE NO DEMANDS. SID MADE NO DEMANDS. Your reaction to Sid was very knee-jerk, something you seem to have a propensity for, one of your definite weaknesses and not a good trait for a business leader. In the aftermath, you speak of 'demands' as if Sid had the Mafia there with him.

But now you're taking a different tack, trying to spin it that Gary has no chance of winning so there never was any real offer of sponsorship. That still doesn't justify your insulting heavy handedness that made any future Sid Belzberg sponsorship impossible. You turned Sid away FOR GOOD. The present and future membership is potentially impacted by that. Some of those Windsor kids of yours might not get a sponsorship to an international event because of it. You REALLY need to think about that. That favorite quote of yours, "do nothing which is of no use"... you did something all right, and it was "of use" but the "use" was anything but good for chess in Canada. Here's a paraphrased quote for you: "The best laid plans of mice and men Often go awry".

In 6 years on this forum, I've never seen an actual sponsor post here. The one that finally shows up and says "I might sponsor chess in Canada if..." gets a slap to the head, and not just from you, even Nigel chimed in with a totally insulting post (insulting to both Sid AND to CFC members) that made Sid appear like a misbehaving kindergarden student.

The sooner you apologize directly to Sid for totally misconstruing his posts, the sooner you become a true leader and not a self-imaged one. Sometimes you have to be heavy handed... and sometimes you have to bow down and say 'I made a mistake, please accept my apology.'

And last I checked, there are at least 2 people wanting to know where you got the intel that Kasparov publicly stated he ruined Salov, part of your reasoning for not supporting Kasparov. The longer you hold out on that, the more nefarious or just plain stupid you look. Is there any such intel? Did you read it in a CNN web page several years ago and instantly buy into it?

So have I reached the point where you're going to 'plonk' me? You've used that type of threat against quite a few people, as if you're some super genius who at any moment can destroy his debating opponents. Bring it on, big boy! Use all your best quotes and song lyrics, lol! Jean Hebert tried the quote thing too... intelligent readers don't buy into that. Not too many people believe Leonard Cohen has some magical mystic insight that we should all bow down to.

I'll use your own statement to Sid against you: I'm not buying what you're selling.

* * *

P.S.: this is a few hours later, and I see from another post that Vlad has put me on his ignore list. Whew! I'm not going to get 'plonked'! Instead, my debater and your CFC President effectively cuts off the debate. That's his 'new way of doing things'.

I think in chess they call that a resignation.