Here's a short list:
Chess Club Official: None
Tournament Director: None
State Affiliate: None
USCF Committeework: None
Newsletter/Magazine: None
Blog: Started one after he announced his campaign. (See below.)
Walters is saying the typical things chess politicians say when they have no real credentials:
a) He's going to represent the players, since he has no organizer experience.
Trying to turn a liability into an asset. So, why didn't/won't he represent the players in his state or his local chess club?
b) He's passionate about chess.
Sure, and the other pols are not? Since his one claim to contributing to chess other than just playing it is this blog, it sure would be nice if there were at least more than one post to it since Feb. 18 - and that was just a crosstable!
c) He's posted 300 odd comments to the USCF's Issues Forum. Mostly mean, nasty attacks or else some petty comment. These means that he fits right in with the USCF politics culture. (Sigh!)
----------
Note John Hillery's comment to yesterday's post. Walters should be elected only to keep Sam Sloan out. This is what the USCF has come to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Um, Jack, that's not exactly what I said. Your wording implies that I agree with your criticism of Gary Walters. What I wrote was that, _even if_ all of your criticisms were accepted at face value, he would _still_ be one of the two best candidates. I'm not campaigning for Walters or singing his praises (the most favorable thing I've _ever_ said about any EB candidate is "mostly harmless"), but I do think that your assessment of him is colored by personal animus. It's also counterproductive, since we all agree that electing Sloan instead would be the worst possible outcome.
ReplyDeleteOne other point: "He's posted 300 odd comments to the USCF's Issues Forum. Mostly mean, nasty attacks or else some petty comment" is really quite unfair. Certainly some of his posts would fall into that category; that's true of all of us. Many, however, were comments on the Truong/Polgar litigation from a lawyer's perspective. The fact that you may not agree with his views on that matter does not justify calling them "mean, nasty attacks."
ReplyDeleteSee his comments to my summary of USCF finances. Your claim to personal animus is false. I've never met the gent or have I ever had any personal dealings or communications with him.
ReplyDeleteMy position is that the USCF badly needs healing right now and this guy is no healer; he's an attacker. Since the USCF is stuck with him, there's some kind of karmic justice here.
About that lawyer stuff. He's posted on the Polgar litigation from a lawyer's perspective, where his input was unnecessary. The litigation was adversarial, so that seemed to be what drew his attention.
ReplyDeleteOn contract matters, where the USCF really does need lawyer comments, he pulled back from providing input there - unless he's elected, of course. That kind of law must not have been adversarial enough to excite his attention or committment.