Funny piece, in a number of ways, ending with the exhortation
we'll make it an Olympic year in many ways.How? Will chess be in the Olympics then? But let it pass, and scroll up to the flounce:
I do understand the criticisms levelled at me by some people for my more radical methods – one major issue seems to have been my habit of putting my own money into chess and into the federation but in the light of these concerns, I shall desist from doing so immediately.Hmmm.
Now as it happens I know of nobody who's criticised CJ for his "habit" (a settled or regular tendency or practice?) of "putting [his] own money into chess", but the comments box is open for anybody who can supply a reference to anybody doing so.
Curiously, though, I do have a reference to a previous comment of CJ's, from 13 July 2011, more than three months before the one given above.
In all honesty, I won't be contributing any more personal funds to chess as I can't afford it
Makes a change. Previously CJ reckoned he'd done things he didn't appear to have done. Now it's the other way around: he's claiming he's going to do something that he already did.
[CJ index]
[Thanks to JB]
4 comments:
Perhaps CJ is concerned about posts mostly on this blog which query the amounts raised for the 2011 British. If no money had been raised, there wouldn't have been posts critical of the accounting.
Having said that, one of the principal organisers has suggested that not all the financial support for the Congress went through the ECF's books.
Hello anony.
Perhaps you flatter us with the suggestion that the ECF President is an avid reader, but anyhoo ...
If no money had been raised, there wouldn't have been posts critical of the accounting
In fact, if accounts were promised and not delivered - as was the case with CJ and the first Nigel Short tour and CJ and the Staunton Memorial Dinner - then I suspect there would have been a post about that.
Having said that, one of the principal organisers has suggested that not all the financial support for the Congress went through the ECF's books.
I have heard that too. Doesn't make it correct just because I've heard it, but it would be interesting to have the ECF confirm the truth either way.
Perhaps CJ is concerned about posts mostly on this blog which query the amounts raised for the 2011 British
Perhaps so, but that's not what he's saying is it? If it is what CJ is concerned about maybe he should
(a) say it
(b) avoid the problem in the first place by being more careful with his accounting and actually delivering on what he promises.
Since I'm here, I should point out that the posts on this blog do not "query the amounts raised for the 2011 British" as you put it. What they do make clear, however, is that what CJ says concerning the amounts raised for the British varies according to when he says it.
If you infer that the post author believes that this is not a good thing, you would be right.
If you infer that the post author believes that therefore some money must have 'gone missing' in some way, you would be wrong.
On the Anonymous theme, we've been getting quite a few anonymous postings of late. This is acceptable in itself (and obviously sometimes there are very good reasons for remaining anonymous) but do bear in mind that rather less leeway will be given to anonymous postings than to those bearing a name or individual handle of some sort. This is particularly so where personal criticisms or allegations are concerned: if you want to make them, you may need to append a name to your posting.
Apologies for the inconvenience. Do carry on.
Ceej just makes me laugh. Hilarious person. (I can never take him seriously: http://patzerseescheck.blogspot.com/2011/08/suggestions-for-cj.html)
Post a Comment