I have copied the source programs and
compiled micro-Max 4.0 and 4.8 on
my Mac OS X. These cute C programs,
pearls of programming, can be copied
from:

http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/dwnldpage.html

or more precisely, from:

http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/umax4_0.c

and

http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/umax4_8.c

***

I ran these two programs in the so-called
terminal window. They printed the initial
position, they accepted my first move, they
printed the position after my first move, and
... nothing! How frustrated!

[quote="Grant Perks"]The first issue is how to treat the excess income
over the $50,000 cap. To avoid never being able to report on a GAAP
basis, it appears to me that the excess income must go straight to the
fund balance. While posting directly to the fund balance the income
isn't being shown on the P&L it is still being recognized. If it isn't
handled this way then the only way to get back to GAAP would be to
post a prior period adjustment in 2010. A prior period adjustment
appears contrary to the spirit of the mandate.

My personal read of the bylaws indicates that the financials are to be
presented on a GAAP basis. This delegate mandate was not an amendment
to the bylaws. In my opinion, the bylaws should take priority over a
delegate motion in the case of a conflict.

Grant Perks [/quote]

The $50,000 cap is a cap on the so-called "imaginary" money that the
USCF is supposed to receive but does not actually get. Back when the
LMA or "Life Management Assets" had two million dollars in it, every
year the LMA would transfer about $100,000 to operations to service
the Life Members by sending them Chess Life magazine.

On Jul 20, 5:21 am, WPraeder aol.com> wrote:

I have just finished reading the entire court decision in Batzel v.
Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). It is an interesting and
relevant decision. Thank you very much for posting it.

However, the difference between this case and the email by Susan
Polgar accusing a rival candidate of being a child molester is that
the original email that Polgar forwarded was from an anonymous source.
Not only do we not know who wrote it, but it is entirely possible that
Polgar herself wrote it. Indeed, it is widely believed that the
"anonymous" postings that frequently appear on her blog stating "We
don't want no women or freeking foreigners here. Go back to where you
came from", were writen by Polgar herself.