|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 30, 2005 18:47:11 GMT -6
It's less than 24 hours away.
I know Nicole and I are planning to attend.
Anyone?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Jul 30, 2005 21:21:43 GMT -6
Pass.
What I get here is more than enough...
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on Jul 31, 2005 19:31:01 GMT -6
Pass. What I get here is more than enough... Sadly, this was the thought on the subject of Gulf Coast Division improvements by almost everyone. Aside from most of the larger Salle Coach/Owners (Hamsa again was a no-show), a handful of parents, and a few curious as well as concerned fencers like myself, NO ONE SHOWED UP! I hope Louise Has all of our best interests at heart (remember this is the business owner known to have told parents, coaches and adult fencers not to attend certain tournaments last year) because she showed up at the Div elections with enough proxies to out-vote everyone else combined Anyone else remember when another person held this large a monopoly? We have met the enemy, and they are...wellIdon'tknowandI'mreallybusyandgoshIsurehopesomebodydoessomethingaboutallthis... Where were the people who were going to make a difference? Where were the people who were so upset with the way things have been handled lately? Where were the people who were tired of all the unproductive and embarrassing backstabbing? Where were YOU?
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 31, 2005 20:07:18 GMT -6
Aside from most of the larger Salle Coach/Owners (Hamsa again was a no-show), a handful of parents, and a few curious as well as concerned fencers like myself, NO ONE SHOWED UP! I hope Louise Has all of our best interests at heart (remember this is the business owner known to have told parents, coaches and adult fencers not to attend certain tournaments last year) because she showed up at the Div elections with enough proxies to out-vote everyone else combined Anyone else remember when another person held this large a monopoly? We have met the enemy, and they are...wellIdon'tknowandI'mreallybusyandgoshIsurehopesomebodydoessomethingaboutallthis... Where were the people who were going to make a difference? Where were the people who were so upset with the way things have been handled lately? Where were the people who were tired of all the unproductive and embarrassing backstabbing? Where were YOU? Of course, Jon knows *I* was there, as promised. We waved across the room. In fairness, with its whopping 30-odd USFA members, I doubt the Clear Lake Fencing Club qualifies as one of the division's bigger clubs. I also saw 3 from the Spindletop Cavaliers present. But this also makes Jon's very point. If 3 USFA members from a club that usually only boasts 6-9 USFA members made the trek to Houston, that means 33-50% of their voting membership made the trip. What does this say to the clubs with 40, 60, 80 members? Actually, Louise showed up with 61 proxies. The winners and final scores were: Chair - Louise Lepie 91-27 Vice Chair - Jerry Dunaway 71-46 Secratary - Matt Delevoryas 81-34 Treasurer - Rachel El-Saleh 87-31 While, obviously, Louise's 61 proxies helped her cause alot, the voting was varied by many of those there. It is also obvious, from total votes cast in some elections, that a couple of voters abstained from time to time. I can tell you that, between my wife and I (the only two from CLFC present) we were assigned only 2-3 proxies between the two of us. I recognize many from my own club never mailed their proxies.
|
|
|
Post by Bonedaddy on Aug 1, 2005 15:19:54 GMT -6
Four out of five eligible voters from Katy Blades turned out in person or proxy. That's 80%. The club has many more USFA Members, but only five that were adults on February 1st.
Parents at most clubs, however, are not coerced to join the USFA.
Sure some adult Members didn't show up to vote, but there were 61 people that didn't put any thought into it, and turned their children over to somebody else.
The dirty deed here is proxy abuse.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 1, 2005 22:36:34 GMT -6
Four out of five eligible voters from Katy Blades turned out in person or proxy. That's 80%. The club has many more USFA Members, but only five that were adults on February 1st. Parents at most clubs, however, are not coerced to join the USFA. Sure some adult Members didn't show up to vote, but there were 61 people that didn't put any thought into it, and turned their children over to somebody else. The dirty deed here is proxy abuse. Again, I come from a club that (largely made up of people WELL into adulthood) only had 2 votes in person and 2 proxies. We had neither those who showed up to vote nor those who would even turn their votes over to someone else. In this respect, my hat is off to Louise. They at least made sure their voices were heard, even if someone else was the choirmaster. Proxy abuse? I'd have been content with proxy USE.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Aug 2, 2005 0:03:25 GMT -6
The dirty deed here is proxy abuse. Again, I come from a club that (largely made up of people WELL into adulthood) only had 2 votes in person and 2 proxies. ...... In this respect, my hat is off to Louise. They at least made sure their voices were heard, even if someone else was the choirmaster. Proxy abuse? I'd have been content with proxy USE. Use or abuse?It is interesting to compare the results of these elections, supervised by the USFA, and last year's elections, unsupervised, and much criticized by many. April 3, 2004 Elections for Chairman of the GC Division (unsupervised) July 31, 2005 Elections for Chairman of the GC Division (supervised by the USFA) Total votes2004: # of possible voters 311 2005: # of possible voters 3212004: # of votes cast for chairman 225 out 311 possible voters (72%) 2005: # of votes cast for chairman 118 out 321 possible voters (37%)2004: # of votes for Louise 176 (57% of possible voters; 78% of votes cast) 2004: # of votes for opponent 46 (15% of possible voters; 20% of votes cast) 2005: # of votes for Louise 91 (28% of possible voters; 77% of votes cast) 2005: # of votes for opponent 27 (8% of possible voters; 23% of votes cast) Proxies at 2004 and 2005 Elections2004: about 200 total 2005: 94 totalTop proxies holders:2004: Louise Lepie 90 out of 96 possible BCFA voters (94%) 2004: Mauro Hamza 65 out of 85 possible SM voters (76%) 2005: Louise Lepie 61 out of 63 possible BCFA voters (97%) 2005: SM (El Saleh) 11 out of 80 possible SM voters (14%)If Louise got all her proxies from her own club ( a wild guess ), this year she got a 97% return leaving only ONE vote from her club unaccounted (61 proxies + her own vote = 62 out of a possible 63). And all this was orchestrated in the last two weeks in July when everybody had to stay put and get their proxies to Donald in time... Isn't this what we all did? However, nobody other than Saddam Hussein in his heydays could manage this type of support. As Schlager7 so aptly puts it, hats off to Louise! And for those curious to know how the various clubs share the 321 possible votes -- as long as there is 100% loyalty without any traitors -- here is the list in descending order: Salle Mauro: 80 BCFA: 63 Alliance: 39 Clear Lake: 20 Katy Blades: 13 TAMU: 11 Knights of Trapani: 10 U St. Thomas: 9 South Houston HS: 7 Brazos Fencing: 6 FC UH: 6 Westchester: 5 Rice: 4 Spindletop: 3 Galveston: 2 Young Elites: 2 Others (non attached): 41 -------------------------------------------- total possible GCD voters: 321 Lastly, here are the only nine clubs in the GC Division recognized by the USFA (minimum 10 USFA members as of Feb 1, 2004) until Feb 1, 2006, for tournament scheduling pourposes (# of USFA members on Feb 1, 2004): Salle Mauro (165), BCFA (102), Alliance (79), Katy Blades (52), Clear Lake (29), Knights of Trapani (21), South Houston HS (17), Westchester (17), and TAMU (11).
|
|
nemo
Blademaster
mobilis in mobili
Posts: 729
|
Post by nemo on Aug 3, 2005 17:30:20 GMT -6
If Louise got all her proxies from her own club ( a wild guess ), this year she got a 97% return leaving only ONE vote from her club unaccounted (61 proxies + her own vote = 62 out of a possible 63). And all this was orchestrated in the last two weeks in July when everybody had to stay put and get their proxies to Donald in time... Isn't this what we all did? However, nobody other than Saddam Hussein in his heydays could manage this type of support. As Schlager7 so aptly puts it, hats off to Louise! Invoking Saddam Hussein? tsk-tsk. I really expected better of you. Very tacky. As a rule I enjoys your posts. They always give me a smirk and a chuckle. Orchestrated? It denotes organization, skill and artistry. It connotes something dishonest. You mean, she had more proxies than you and yours? Guess what? Proxies are votes. The side with the most votes wins. That's the way the system works. I recall last time I was in Salle Mauro (been awhile)seeing a sign requesting that those signing up and making payments to become members of that club also take a moment to sign a proxy for their USFA vote. Just a little pushy in my book, but perfectly legal, certainly allowed and in MOST divisions the same thing goes on.
|
|
|
Post by fox on Aug 4, 2005 6:41:28 GMT -6
uhm, can we move on until this time next year?
|
|
|
Post by cowpaste on Aug 4, 2005 11:23:52 GMT -6
I didn't vote because I'm in Thailand! Then again, my vote wouldn't have mattered! I live in Texas!
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 4, 2005 22:19:20 GMT -6
Okay... I'm confused. I live in Texas and MY vote mattered.
OTOH, I'm flattered you picked the main page of this site as your home page!
Have an exalt out of petty cash.
|
|
|
Post by cowpaste on Aug 6, 2005 1:18:51 GMT -6
Hmm...I never set this forum up as my webpage, but that's what my profile says. Is it a default or something? Anyway, since I don't really have a homepage, I guess it won't hurt to have the Gulf Coast fencing forums as my homepage. I visit it pretty often.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Aug 6, 2005 10:30:55 GMT -6
If Louise got all her proxies from her own club ( a wild guess ), this year she got a 97% return leaving only ONE vote from her club unaccounted (61 proxies + her own vote = 62 out of a possible 63). And all this was orchestrated in the last two weeks in July when everybody had to stay put and get their proxies to Donald in time... Isn't this what we all did? However, nobody other than Saddam Hussein in his heydays could manage this type of support. As Schlager7 so aptly puts it, hats off to Louise! Invoking Saddam Hussein? tsk-tsk. I really expected better of you. Very tacky. As a rule I enjoys your posts. They always give me a smirk and a chuckle. Orchestrated? It denotes organization, skill and artistry. It connotes something dishonest. You mean, she had more proxies than you and yours? Guess what? Proxies are votes. The side with the most votes wins. That's the way the system works. I recall last time I was in Salle Mauro (been awhile)seeing a sign requesting that those signing up and making payments to become members of that club also take a moment to sign a proxy for their USFA vote. Just a little pushy in my book, but perfectly legal, certainly allowed and in MOST divisions the same thing goes on. LANGUAGE AND STATISTICSYou believe that the verb "orchestrate" carries a sinister connotation? Problems with the vocabulary? Hmm ... let's first correct your language, just for fun, you understand ... I used the verb orchestrate inspired by Schlager7 comment on the same election, posted just before mine, when he mentioned a choirmaster being able to marshal proxies for the election. In deference to him I wanted to maintain the musical analogy progressing from a choir (of "naive" children) to a full orchestra (of "mature" players). Funny that you object to the latter but did not take exception to the former. Just to be fair, let's go to the dictionary: choir·mas·ter (kwir'mas't?r) n.The director of a group of church singers. or·ches·trate (ôr'ki-strat') tr.v., -trat·ed, -trat·ing, -trates. 1. To compose or arrange (music) for performance by an orchestra. 2. To arrange or control the elements of, as to achieve a desired overall effect: orchestrated a successful political campaign. Orchestrate does not denote organization, skill or artistry, nor does it connote something dishonest. Now that we have the vocabulary straighten up, let's switch to math -- statistics to be more precise. I always feel that we'd all be much better off if statistics was properly taught in school so that as grownups we don't make dumb decisions based on misunderstood sense, or concepts, of probability (like using the wrong words when expressing opinion, if you catch my drift). If you read my posting and analyze both the figures and my statement, you'd understand that what I said was "if all Louise's proxies were from her club members ... then she had 61 proxies + her own vote = 62 votes out of 63." I am aware of the fact that Louise got at least 29 votes form voters NOT in her club, which indicates that she was effective in gathering votes from the rest of the division, as she did last year when Salle Mauro gave her their votes. But, with 118 votes in total, when one shows up with a block of 62 votes [proxies plus her own vote] simple arithmetic should tell you that the election is over before being carried out. This is why I am interested in the proxies, why the title of my post was USE OR ABUSE? and why I referred to our Iraqi "friend." I didn't invocate Saddam Hussein, I just referred to a well reported fact of his elections -- invocate? Why using such an archaic expression instead of invoke? Statistics will show you that this rate of internal support -- under the stated hypothesis -- is highly unlikely. Common sense should tell you that it is nary an impossibility, under the same hypotheses. But, as it is well known, common sense is anything but common. I am surprised that you, and others, may not find this unusual, or object if I find it unusual. Furthermore, you bring into the discussion what Salle Mauro did in marshaling their proxies. I don't have any problem with it, nor should anyone else. If you look at the numbers of proxies they gathered, it was very low, not because of lack of support, but because of the limitations imposed by the USFA on Salle Mauro and everyone else to gather/campaign for 100% of their proxies in the last 2 weeks of July. Remember, we all received the proxies in the mail on Friday 15, and they had to get back to Colorado by July 29. Could you find almost 100% of your club members and persuade them to mail their proxies in this time period? Could any one else come close to 100% of their members? Did anyone else get the proxies signed and delivered from N - 1 (where N = number of votes from their club)? Questions, questions, questions ... they may not stimulate your curiosity, but they do mine, and of many others with an inquiring mind. And before you jump on me that I am only critical of Louise, let me state that I am grateful to Louise because she was visionary enough to bring to Houston Andrey Geva who, you may not know this, has made fencing, youth fencing, and competitive fencing in the GC division, known and noticed nationally. I am grateful to Louise for putting in place a fencing facility which is one of the best nationally.I disagree with Louise in how she treats people who work for her, what she attempts to do to them after they leave, the way she runs many aspects of the division, and her disregard for the rules until called to the task. All this may not affect you and you may not care, but it bothers me and others.
|
|
|
Post by Aldo N on Aug 6, 2005 10:51:23 GMT -6
This is why I am interested in the proxies, why the title of my post was USE OR ABUSE? and why I referred to our Iraqi "friend." I didn't invocate Saddam Hussein, I just referred to a well reported fact of his elections -- invocate? Why using such an archaic expression instead of invoke? While I agree with many of your points, Flamberge, except the insufferable tangents on vocabulary and grammar, which I consider a major waste of bandwidth. I agree with Nemo that injecting Saddam Hussein's name in any discussion of anyone's methods is highly inflammatory. It generates an intense emotional response in many people. Hussein held elections in which he was the only candidate. In this your reference is understandable, if exaggerated due to the extremes of his "orchestration." More importantly, when you invoke his name you invoke the name of a man who is a mass murderer many times over. I object to the reference to him and Louise just as I would to making a reference to something Mauro or Andrey might have done using Hitler's name, or that of Stalin. Your intent may have been innocent, but hyperbole can carry its own sins. (Please, if your next response will be another visit to the dictionary, could you do it on the Miriam Webster Discussion Forum?)
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Aug 6, 2005 23:18:03 GMT -6
This is why I am interested in the proxies, why the title of my post was USE OR ABUSE? and why I referred to our Iraqi "friend." I didn't invocate Saddam Hussein, I just referred to a well reported fact of his elections -- invocate? Why using such an archaic expression instead of invoke? While I agree with many of your points, Flamberge, except the insufferable tangents on vocabulary and grammar, which I consider a major waste of bandwidth. ....... (Please, if your next response will be another visit to the dictionary, could you do it on the Miriam Webster Discussion Forum?) Aldo, It's Merriam-Webster, not Miriam, from the Merriam brothers who purchased the rights to revise the dictionary from Noah Webster's heirs ... It is also true that Noah was quite a ladies man, but not to the point of giving any of them the rights to his dictionary. Actually, there is an interesting story about Webster and how he corrected his wife's wrong choice of words when he was caught in flagrante delicto, but you'd not appreciate it and would consider a waste of bandwidth.
|
|
|
Post by LongBlade on Aug 7, 2005 15:49:17 GMT -6
Well, I can't resist wasting a little bandwidth! ;D Noah Webster's ReplyIt seems that among the servants in the New Haven home of Noah and Maria Greenleaf Webster there chanced to be a pretty young upstairs maid. One day, Maria Webster wanted to give some instructions to the servant girl, but couldn't find her anywhere. The only room in the house where she hadn't looked, of course, was Noah's study, because she certainly didn't want to interrupt her husband at his scholarly work. Finally, in desperation Mrs. Webster decided to check her husband's room. She opened the door quietly and discovered the maid all right: she and Noah were engaged in a rather passionate kiss! Maria Webster gasped and cried out, "Why, Noah, I am... surprised." Her husband turned slowly toward the door, releasing his grip on the girl, if not on his faculties, and replied, "I beg to differ with you, my dear. I am surprised. You are astonished." www.curbstone.org/index.cfm?webpage=65
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Aug 7, 2005 18:18:09 GMT -6
Well, I can't resist wasting a little bandwidth! ;D Noah Webster's Reply...... Mrs. Webster decided to check her husband's room. She opened the door quietly and discovered the maid all right: she and Noah were engaged in a rather passionate kiss! Maria Webster gasped and cried out, "Why, Noah, I am... surprised." Her husband turned slowly toward the door, releasing his grip on the girl, if not on his faculties, and replied, "I beg to differ with you, my dear. I am surprised. You are astonished." Longblade, YOU are a gentleman and a scholar! Thank you for wasting some bandwith and hopefully Aldo won't get his knickers in a knot because of this exchange. When I first heard about this story, it was slightly different. Noah was indeed caught by his wife in a much more compromising situation than a "passionate kiss." Accordingly, to his wife wrong choice of words, he replied, "I beg to differ with you, my dear. I am surprised. You are amazed."If you ever see a picture of Noah, it is probably more a case of amazement than astonishment ... (more precious bandwidth being wasted...)
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on Aug 7, 2005 22:45:02 GMT -6
Sooooo, now I see that each club gets ONE rated tournament for the year rated by her Ladyship??? I thought each club was going to get two...If I earn my "B" at a large tourney that is not permitted USFA rankings, I will slit someones throat. I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO A TOURNEY, THAT WAS BIG ENOUGH TO BE A RATED TOURNEY, AND HAD SOMEONE TELL ME IT WASN'T RATED. Someone tell me we will not ever have an event with 8 "A's and 40 fencers showing up that cannot be considered a rated tournament. Someone tell me we will never have a large tournament that cannot be considered a rated tournament. On Fencing.net I met a fellow who divided beginner tourneys into 2 separate events if they got more that 30 fencers just so the could have more rankings awarded. Someone tell me we will not ever have an event with 8 "A's and 40 fencers showing up that cannot be considered a rated tournament. Someone tell me I missed something. In Austin, TFA held unranked and "E" or "D" and under events every 2 or 3 weeks, and if there wasn't quite enough fencers to make the 15 needed, cross-weapon fencers were singed up just to make the numbers. Of course, this was in a division where all the fencing clubs supported each other. Someone tell me we will never have a large tournament that cannot be considered a rated tournament. I will be fine with things until someone (me or ANYONE else) is denied a deserved ranking from this BUL#SH#T...then blood will flow.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 8, 2005 6:13:36 GMT -6
Sooooo, now I see that each club gets ONE rated tournament for the year rated by her Ladyship??? Where are you seeing that? Is it a reference to this line in Louise's letter? Each of the seventeen USFA member clubs of the Gulf Coast Division may choose one weekend on which they may schedule a tournament that will be sanctioned by the Division for earning classifications and shall be a protected weekend. If it is, and I realize you had to leave before the meeting was over, let me help. Each legit member club gets one wholly-owned, fully-sanctioned, non-competed weekend. There will be OTHER WEEKENDS with tournaments. Many of these will be opposite someone else's tournament, but arrange so events are not opposite. Example: Salle Mauro and Alliance each have a tournament on a given weekend. Salle Mauro schedules foil for Saturday, Alliance schedules foil on Sunday. So everyone gets one weekend with NOTHING ELSE that is USFA sanctioned opposite it. Everyone will also get weekends that require a bit more organization. I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by captain jon on Aug 8, 2005 22:46:33 GMT -6
[/b][/quote]
So if I was a pessimist, I could assume that we will now only have 17 rated tournys a year? If more, (overlaps) who decides WHICH tourny will be ranked? Has the USFA set a limit, and if so, what is it?
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 9, 2005 7:52:21 GMT -6
A lot of this is what will get hashed out at the Tournament Committee meeting Wednesday night, I presume.
OTOH take heart. There was a lot of talk about legit USFA clubs (i.e. more than 10 USFA members). So if you eliminate the small guys, you only have to divvy up between 9 or 10 clubs. The little guys probably won't get a tournament. There is more to go around that way.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Aug 9, 2005 13:14:13 GMT -6
What I don't understand is how is Jon being potentially denied a rating if there is a sanctioned tournament being held by some club in the division every available weekend?
Dan
|
|
Katman
Squire
[ss:Default]
Posts: 269
|
Post by Katman on Aug 9, 2005 14:56:57 GMT -6
The little guys probably won't get a tournament. There is more to go around that way. Let us hope us little guys can still get away with our Call to Arms. Edit: I'm not too worried about it.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Aug 16, 2005 10:33:23 GMT -6
Okay, guys. I've posted the rough draft of the minutes of the July 31, 2005 meeting... the parts concerning the bylaws, at any rate.
They are on the rogue site, just look for it on the blue menu on the left hand side of the main page.
|
|