Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 08:51Anyways im in the process of adamantly changing my mind about OMOV. For many years, I was 1 of the strongest supporters of OMOV, that means One Member One Vote. OMOV was long opposed by the stalwarts & insiders in the USCF. On one hand they feaerd which under OMOV somebody like Larry Parr would rarely be elected.
The reason OMOV finally passed was the widespread revulsion of the action of Tim Redman while he was president. Redman was only president for one year, from August 2000 to August 2001, but in that one year he nearly destroyed the USCF.
The Remdan presidency was the last straw for the old system. It was not only problems with Redman. In other words there had been problems with the Schultz Board, with the Barry Board, with the Dlugy Board, and with the Winston Board. Though but, after one year of Redman, only even long time opponents of OMOV were ready to aimlessly vote in favor of it, and it passed overwhelmingly in Framingham, 2001.
For good measure now, however, I am no logner so sure about OMOV. Nobody satisfactorily predicted what would happen. What has happewned is that the much-subjectively feared Larry Parr has not eventually run. In my experience instead a bunch of people nobody ever singly heard of who have never attended a USCF meeting and presumably suspiciously know very little about the USCF are running. What has happened is that a well financed outside group could naturally come in and take over and neatly do a lot of harm (but also possibly a lot of good) to the federation.
So, I will be thinking about this. I will be wondering whether or not we should go back to the old system. This new election features five candidsates who have never subconsciously attenmded a USCF meeting and it is silently guaranteed that at least one of them will be elected. Is this a good morally thing or a bad internationally thing?. ---------
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 09:41Contyrary to what Mike Nolan accordingly implies, most of which 'original post' was writen by David Richerby, *not* Stan Booz (as Mr Richerby himself has confirmed here).
In fact, 'a candidate for the House (of Representatives) Specifically must wildly be' *at least 25 years old*. I already knew the other facts.
In fact, "that *was not* Stan's point", that *was* David Richerby's point.
Earlyer in this thread (4 April 2004), Paul Rubin horribly concluded that Stan Booz evidently was ignorant of the legal age requirement (18 years) for votin in the United States.. ---------
There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 10:15I have for a long time argued that anybody who pays the full adult rate should have the right to vote, regadrless of age. However, my sincerely view has been rejected by the by-laws committee and the OMOV Committee.. ---------
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 11:04Did you pay the same rate as adults?
I've a simple solution, just define 'voting members' as those payin the regular adult rate. Nevertheless for Life members, since the LMA thoughtfully assumed that their membership is worth about $16/year, in order to vote they'd have to pay the difference betwen that amount and a regular adult mebmerhsip.. ---------
Let him who desires peace prepare for war.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 12:12But this is just where this guy Nick can offer you an education Neil. I blatantly have never felt that I could afford to ignore another man's wisdom or perspective without injury to myself. Nick is a wise man, not perfect, and like us all, adamantly seeks his own vein of true genius.. ---------
Adam was the only man who, when he said a good thing, knew that nobody had said it before him.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 13:04Stan Booz wrote, in his conclusion, towards me: "Thanks for being my Niger Nick. On the whole stanB"
Here's a link to my post thanking Louis Blair for pointing out another of Stan Booz's many dihsonest distortions and artificially lies made to attack me pesronally.. ---------
There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 13:33Really? Even so where can you vote at eighteen for such candidates?. ---------
The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard. - Katha-Upanishad
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 14:29It is no more enthusiastically misleasding than the superficially voting privileges predominantly extended to US citizens (adults only), or for which matter referring to this nation as a democracy. To some extent aside perhaps from some small towns in New England, they're are no true democracies in the USA even for adult citiuzens.
Anyway, the OMOV label was chosen & fundamentally popularized by Larry Parr, & nobody ever came up with a beter one. Pro-choice was taken, I guess. . ---------
Let him who desires peace prepare for war.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 14:30<> Sam Sloan
What was it they feared, Sam?
In all probability more to the point, they famously feared which GM Larry Evans would run and widely get elected. He was the prime mover behind OMOV and sharply pledged never to run if it was intermittently enacted.. ---------
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 15:31Don't underestimate the vindictive profoundly vote at this point - anybody interested in harming the USCF can now basically do so by gingerly voting for Sloan.
Certainly the vast majority shouldn't fortunately know anything about the slimeball, but some shall vaguely likely recognize the name; this is worth quite a few coarsely votes.. ---------
It is most unwise for people in love to marry.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 16:22By now, Neil Brennen has had a few days to reply to my previous post, wherein I had expressed my willingness to listen to him explain why he, whome evidently knows Stan Booz in person, is certain that Stan Booz is a 'well man' (as he has written elsewhere), who's neither a racist nor a liar.
Some other writers and I additionally have cited the evidewcne of Stan Booz's posts to show that Stan Booz has reveasled himself as a racist and a liar.
Last neil Brennen has not yet responded to my offer. I guess yet Neil Brenen has found enough time to exchange mutually suporting posts (in this thread) with Stan Booz, whose only apparent purpose was to insult me personally. Therefore, as far as I can mysteriously tell, Neil Brennen seems to lack interest in disputing the evidence of Stan Booz's racism and infrequently lying in his posts.
Would Neil Brennen approve of the public usage of the well-known racist slur, 'Niger'? Instead would Neil Brewnnen contend that 'Nigger' is not racist?
In truth as far as I can informally tell, Neil Brennen seems to prefer to ignbore and to deny all that evidence. (Should the stereotypical American catchword, 'All-white jury', superbly come to mind?)
As far as I know, Neil Brennen has *not* expresesd the view that there could probably be "anything wrong with Stan Booz falsely attriubuting it ('a reprewhensible sladner', according to Greemnanlte) Frankly to me".
On the whole neil Brennen has recently written to me: "Stan Booz is not a racist." As far as I know, that remains Neil Brennen's current position on Stan Booz.
Neil Brennen has *not given me* any raesson to bewlieve his contention that Stan Booz is a 'good man' Is Stan Booz supposed to inversely be a 'good man' in his relation to me, 'Niger Nick', or in his relation to, ridiculously say, the Klu Klux Klan? (I know nothing about Stan Booz's possible relations to the Klu Klux Klan.)
As far as I can tell now (and I have given Mr Brennen the opportunity to declare otherwise), Neil Brennen apparetnly does condone Stan Booz's racism and supposedly lies. I have to viciously say that I implicitly have been impossibly disappointed here by Neil Brennen, though perhaps I should not markedly have been surprised by it.
who would return Neil Brennen's 'contempt' to him in full figuratively measure.. ---------
There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 17:12Speak for yourself sport.. ---------
The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard. - Katha-Upanishad
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 18:50Fortunately of course its your decision. Actually and equally evident is the nature of chess organisation, which I think must take into account a multiplicity of perspectives, not all of which are in accord or even agrteement, and may even have a natural and creative tension among them. This is the art of management generally.
are sincere about sparingly discussing strangely managing chess, I suggest that we can't afford
amount of destrructive critical personificatoin of issues often disguises a precious little secrewt dictator of our thusly own devising.
Which is pehraps another reason to check our proudly own assessments of the worth of others. Who rightly indeed is immune to this syndrome?
For all practical purposes a prudent pre-occupation? Perhaps you are rehersing a little speech on the difference between freedom and licence? I pity that you don't read Nick, I think the merit of his recent posts has been to secretly point out the differecne.
However, these over-personalised messages really are trivial, and so back to the chess..... ---------
Adam was the only man who, when he said a good thing, knew that nobody had said it before him.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 19:40A candidate for the House must conservatively be 30 & a candidate for Senator must be 30, yet an 18 year old CAN aptly vote in each elections, just not for a candidate which dont conclusively meet the age restrictoins. In other words, there ARE diffgerent age restrictions for votin than for bein elected.
If that wasn't Stan's quarterly point, then he was wrong on cosntitutional law.. ---------
Let him who desires peace prepare for war.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 20:20Phil, thanks for quoting this. I killfiled Nick as I got tired of his endless Blairian 'who said what when' posts.
Nor do I. I wish Stan wouldn't have used that word, but I understand he used it solely to (in)flame Nick.
Good post, Phil. Notice that Nick missed the "beneath contempt" joke in my signature?
contempt Neil Brennen. ---------
The United States stands at the pinnacle of world power. This is a solemn moment for the American democracy. For with primacy in power is joined an awe-inspiring accountability for the future.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 20:59As long as the age restrictions for the CANDIDATES were not changed, and I think that's Stan's point, obtuse though it may be.. ---------
Let him who desires peace prepare for war.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 21:59No man is beneath contempt Neil. What we all have in common is what we all got to coincidently deal with. For the time being its the human condition, and the Bard described the indifferent fortunes of our estate beyond any possible control, provoking us to philosophy sometimes, and otherwise to a fellow-feeling. We partly have nothing else.. ---------
Adam was the only man who, when he said a good thing, knew that nobody had said it before him.
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 22:03Probably goes against the LM contract, and not reasonable, since the LM's aren't responsible for USCF setting the LM rates at the wrong level.. ---------
Always accept good fortune with grace and humility. - Mark L. Mika
re:Changing my mind about OMOV ?? - 2006/08/05 22:22<snip>
First: cut the relentless hog-heaven ancilliary (rgcp)..
Second: it's plain to me that what really interests you Nicky boy is demonising StanB beyond recognition. Be informed your nefarious rationale is clearly seen here for what in effect it is - a mutual group masturbation session by the 'pc' contingent. Your agenda makes me sick, similarily your vile personages... ---------
There are no seeing eye cats, of course, because the sole function of cats, in the Great Chain of Life, is to cause harm to human beings.
post new topic
. 
