jonottawa

From some of the top class magazines I have read about parts of America, should this question not be Ever screwed your girlfriend even though she was your sister No, but I did screw one once Speaking of things that sound like bunk... :D

Really! I'm not saying I don't believe you but that is extremely surprising to me. Can you prove it? Ya, that sounds like bunk to me too. Kind of like those guys who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional so you don't have to pay it.

From some of the top class magazines I have read about parts of America, should this question not be Ever screwed your girlfriend even though she was your sister ROARRING!!!! That has to be one of the funniest posts in these forums that I have read for many months. Thanks, Wayne (picking self up off floor, wiping away the tears) Apparently not everyone shares your opinion about the humor here. I received an e-mail this morning from an obviously upset person who has a long history of being a volunteer TD on BBO, a long history of helping us to improve the software, and a long history of contributing to Forums. As far as I can tell, this person is also very normal. He or she is not one of those overly-sensitive politically correct types. This person thought that the statement in question was so over the top that he or she has lost all interest in participating in Forums. I don't think it would have taken much thought or imagination for the poster who made this comment to realize that this sort of thing might happen. Whether or not you think such a reaction is reasonable or the remark in question was funny, I don't think that refraining from making jokes on Forums concerning subjects like incest is asking a lot. Sorry if you think this request violates your inalienable right of free speech. Despite this being "The Water Cooler", speech is not completely free here. This is not "The Men's Room". Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com I didn't think the joke was at all funny, either. And I tend to enjoy potty humor. I'd describe it as unoriginal, dull, vapid ... And of course, this is Fred's site and he sets the rules. That being said, anyone who quit the forums over that is almost by definition an 'overly-sensitive politically correct type.'

Why would the IRA care if you cheated on your tax returns or base its conduct on the Patriot Act?

I feel exactly the same way. Unfortunately, we're in the minority. About 7 years ago, I was pulled over by a pig in an unmarked car with a K-9 dog in the back for running a red light on my bicycle. It was during rush hour and he essentially created a traffic jam for 15 minutes so that he could write me a ticket. I wrote an angry letter to the Ottawa Citizen (local paper) that got published. The next day the ENTIRE editorial page (both sides) was full of angry responses to my letter. Austin is pretty bike-unfriendly (surprisingly) but the one time I've been stopped by a pig for running a red light I got let off with a warning.

No Roland, I think people are "idots" who run around being as disrespectful as possible and then accuse other people of similar behavior. Especially if they have smurfy little signature lines.

How disrespectful, to Fred as well as the rest of us. I expected no less when it came from you. We are quite capable of expressing our own views without getting "help" from Fred. Roland I'm sure that Fred felt very disrespected when I suggested that his opinion carries a lot of weight around here. Preach on Mr. "You don’t intimidate me, I only take orders from Fred Gitelman."

There's already a (pretty evenly-divided) poll up about which side is to blame so I don't see how this poll sends a message of support to anyone. If you think Fred wading into a thread and kiboshing an idea isn't going to skew poll results here, you must think the Florida election results in 2000 and Ohio election results in 2004 were legitimate.

I think I reflected my skepticism in the poll results in my initial post. But perceptions often matter more than reality anyway in cases like this.

I know, this poll is about as scientific as a class on Intelligent Design. I'm just curious.

Fred, "1) When I make such statements they are almost always accompanied by a statement of how much I like and respect the person in question and how surprised I am that he (actually they have mostly been she's) would be capable of such behavior." I don't share your view that someone must like me, respect me or praise me in order to criticize me. Nor must I like them, respect them or praise them in order to criticize them. Your view is certainly more diplomatic and will win you more friends in life. Mine is more honest and straightforward. To each his own. "2) I am not one to get involved in petitions or working behind the scenes. When I say something rude in public it is my own opinion and the consequences of my rudeness are between me and the person I was rude to. I do not start campaigns or lobby others to pass on my sarcastic and insulting comments to the people they refer to." Your 2nd point seems to imply that I am somehow trying to lurk in the shadows while my gullible puppets do my evil bidding. C'mon now. Get serious. First, I'm here with my real picture, with a link to my website, www.jonathanferguson.com I'm as transparent as can be. When I first floated the idea of a petition, there were no takers. I let it drop. Today Josh resurrected the idea. So I started this thread. I asked others to propose the wording of the petition. Thus far I've had no takers. So I proposed wording of my own. Critical of both sides in this matter. Not sarcastic, no. Insulting? Well, yes, criticism is often perceived as insulting. "3) Despite my strong feelings about the wrongness of what the Venice Cup Team did I am able to put this aside, not call for anyone's blood, and offer some constructive suggestions on how disaster might be avoided. Your petition was not what I would call "constructive". The way you conveniently shift (almost) all the blame to the other side, (almost) completely ignore any wrongdoing by the group who created this mess, and launch your own call for blood reminds me of the tactics of those you claim to despise so much (Sean Hannity comes to mind)." It's the Board that "wants blood." I believe in the golden rule. If they want to treat the Venice Cup team like that, they should get some of their own medicine and decide if they like how it tastes. I also believe in fair warning. If they come down hard on the team in SF, I think getting fired from the board will be the least of their concerns. "4) I have no strong political views that at least have the potential to bias everything that I write. I am not a member of either the loony left or the crazy right." I strongly believe in the US Constitution. I believe it's the greatest political document ever written. While you were busy competing for Junior championships, I was busy watching Sunday talk shows, dreaming of the day I could move to the US. That should not make me a radical. Unfortunately, in the last 7 years, the US government has been overthrown by a group of radicals intent on destroying the principles outlined in that document. To speak out against them is decried as radical behavior by some. I do not believe that is a rational or justifiable view, nor do the vast majority of non-Americans I speak to. "Sorry in advance, but I am not going to let myself be dragged into another argument here (at least not today)." Fine by me.

Fred, you're the one who used words like temporary insanity being contagious and outrageous to describe the Board's actions. You, of all people, are in the best position to do something about this but all I see you doing is sitting around saying stuff like (paraphrasing): "Well now, aren't those loony lefties and crazy righties just a bunch of goofballs?" If you're working on this through back channels, that's one thing. I don't see anybody with any sense working on this at all. I'm frustrated. That's it.

I've said from the beginning that Miss Manners wouldn't approve of what they did, Roland. That's 'poor taste' in my books. Anyway, it's easy to find fault with what I wrote, let's see what you guys can come up with. (At least those of you who are supportive of the idea of a petition.)

Alright here's my first shot at this: We, the undersigned members of the American Contract Bridge League, wish to bring to the attention of the USBF board of directors the following points, with which we are all in agreement: 1. The USA 1 Venice Cup team behaved in poor taste when they made a spur-of-the-moment decision to hold up a hand-made sign saying "We did not vote for Bush" at the awards banquet. 2. The behavior of the USBF Board of Directors since that event has been far worse than that exhibited by the USA 1 Venice Cup team at the awards banquet. The Board offered the members of the team a draconian punishment as a 'plea bargain' and threatened them with an even more draconian punishment if they declined the offer. This vengeful and mean-spirited behavior has brought substantial negative attention to our sport, has caused rifts to occur among our membership, has all but ensured that this controversy will drag on for some time (and end up in court) and has jeopardized the continued existence of the USBF. 3. The USBF Board of Directors should have, as its primary responsibility, taken steps to ensure that this sort of behavior does not reoccur instead of seeking to impose an exceedingly harsh punishment for a minor, first-time, transgression. 4. If the USBF Board of Directors does not change its approach to a more civilized and dignified one representing the mainstream opinion of United States bridge players, its members should resign. 5. Failing that, we will demand that the ACBL stop funding the USBF with our membership dues and with the funds collected at certain ACBL-sanctioned games.

"Champions should strive to a level of conduct beyond reproach." So should governing boards. "It is how that person acts once he or she has fallen from grace, by committing an error in judgement or by giving in to an emotional urge." An emotional urge like, say, "Burn the witches!"? The ladies committed the least offensive faux pas imaginable on the spur of the moment. The Board, after weeks of deliberation, continues to behave in a vile, unAmerican, vengeful and draconian way. Someone on that board needs to grow a pair. If they don't, there need to be consequences. Giving them fair warning that there will be consequences is the least we owe them.

I think there should be a petition against the way the USBF is handling the 'we did not vote for Bush' incident. The purpose of this thread is to offer proposed wording for said petition that most people can agree with. Once we narrow down the wording to a couple of alternatives, we can vote on the 'best' one in another thread and then hopefully a couple of prominent members of the bridge community can sponsor it. If someone with more bridge experience, influence, or diplomacy than me wants to take this and run with it, be my guest, but I haven't seen anybody doing anything and so I've taken it upon myself to do so. Edit: The petition is up at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/USBFVeniceCupTeam/ The petition is based on a letter written by Richard E. Willey, edited by Josh Donn. The petition is categorically NOT an anti-USBF petition. Its 2nd signatory is Han Peters, who states below that he would absolutely NOT be willing to sign an anti-USBF petition. It's mainly just a 'let's put this behind us' petition. Unfortunately, when I started a new thread titled 'Petition of Leniency toward USA1 Venice Cup team' it was deleted. A request to be allowed to revive that thread is pending. The text is as follows: We, the undersigned, are writing this petition to respectably request that the USBF ceases its attempts to punish members of the USA1 Venice Cup team. We believe that the controversy surrounding the sanctions has eclipsed the original incident. A politically charged battle that has rapidly spread into the mainstream media doesn't benefit anyone. We recognize that there is enormous controversy regarding the action of the USA1 team on the podium in Shanghai. However, the USBF Board had a number of alternative responses available which were more suited to the magnitude of the situation: 1. Noting that the behavior of the USA1 Team violated the WBF Code of Conduct. 2. Expressing regret toward the behavior of the USA1 Team and recognizing that the WBF might chose to impose sanctions. 3. Implementing its own Code of Conduct designed to avoid repeat incidents. The USBF BoD has the authority to take almost any action that it wants. However, the punishment should fit the crime, and we do not support the extremeness of the actions being considered toward the Venice Cup Team. Respectfully,

I suggested as much on page 30. I don't think it's about know-how (start a petition thread or host it on someone's blog) but as I said on page 30, it would be nice if the organizers of the petition were prominent and respected members of the bridge community.

Judging from the 2004 Election controversy, you're not very good at your job. This is kind of like asking, are you the Jonathan Ferguson involved in these disciplinary hearings and why were the trophies withheld from you? http://www.ny-bridge.com/allevy/newsletter/toronto.html I am amused that you would see a parallel. One involves a disgraceful and successful attempt to suppress votes and undermine democracy that arguably allowed George Bush to steal a 2nd consecutive election that he would have lost if it had been held in accordance with the US Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. The second involves a hearing we won (Unit 192 appealed the ruling that went against them and lost on appeal.) Start up a thread and I'll happily join in and discuss the second issue. But now we're on a tangent of a tangent of a tangent and I'd prefer to at least try to get back to the topic of the thread. Btw, could you clean up that "quote" of me please, Ken? I'd hate for people to think that I was prattling on about my sex organs. Thanks. Edit: Thanks Ken.

Judging from the 2004 Election controversy, you're not very good at your job.

Fred's explanation makes me think even more highly of Jill. And Mike's pining for the good old days: "My guess is that if the ACBL had stood on principle (which it never does), then either we'd still be having mens events (my first regional win was a mens pairs and I was very proud because it was the toughest event in the tournament) ..." ...is exactly the kind of failure to evolve I was talking about. If Jill Levin, or Helen Sobel (or to use a Canadian example, Laurie McIntyre) is playing regularly and exclusively in a mixed partnership, trying to make it as a top pair, who the hell is anyone to tell her that she has to sit on the sidelines at a Nationals while other players (in many cases, lesser players) compete in the "toughest event"?

The intended 'message' of the joke was solely to poke fun at or tweak those men who oppose the existence of women's events. It was poorly worded and could fairly be construed as insulting to ALL participants in such events (which was not what I intended.) That's why I deleted it. Then I posted a link to it (expecting you to continue mewling about how horrible it was to people who hadn't seen it instead of graciously acknowledging that I'd worded it clumsily and moving on.) There is no hypocrisy in saying that the toughest events should be open to all but that there should be Flighted events, Junior events, Senior events and Women events. Keeping the top events open to everyone is about equality of opportunity, a value I support. Allowing people who don't want to play against the toughest competition overall but who want to test themselves against the toughest competition in their peer group also is something I'm more than comfortable with. I've even played in the Red Ribbon Pairs a couple of times. Your last paragraph is laden with errors/misconceptions. Abolishing men's pairs isn't about gender-neutrality, it's about equality of opportunity. The top men tend to play better, on average, than the top women. Very few would disagree with that. If believing that makes me sexist (latent or otherwise,) guilty. I conferred on the 'let's bring the men's pairs back' mindset an anachronistic 'failure to evolve.' Almost noone is running around lambasting Jill Levin for abolishing the men's pairs events who don't support the existence of men's pairs events. I'm not a mind-reader. Lots of people earn their livings in ways that don't advance humanity. What do/did you do for a living?

Aight, the joke was a little over-the-top and I've deleted it. It was meant to poke fun at men who complain that women have women's only events and men don't, but I asked a female friend of mine what she thought of it and she said it sounded a little sexist. Fair enough. I don't see what your problem with Jill Levin is if she is the one responsible for abolishing Men's events and you think it was an archaic concept that was good to drop. Why don't you take the next step and sue to get Women's events dropped as well?

See page 7 of an old (1998) Daily Bulletin for the US Nationals (NABC). The winners (Lew and Joanna Stansby) thanked Jill Levin (formerly Jill Blanchard) as follows. As suggested by the quote, the ACBL used to run parallel mens pairs/teams and womens pairs/teams events, but these were changed to open pairs/teams run simultaneously with womens pairs/teams as a result of the lawsuit filed by (among other plaintiffs) Jill Levin (then Jill Blanchard). Amazing. She fights in court for the ability to play with the men, and yet she plays in an event limited to women. I have so little respect for someone like that. Amazing. She fights for something she believes in even if it doesn't benefit her directly. The nerve of that woman. I joined the ACBL back when this was a hot topic (87/88 I was in high school.) I thought it was a stupid lawsuit and that she should keep her nose out of it. Then again, I was a fan of the Republican Revolution and even enjoyed listening to Rush Limbaugh back in the early 90's. Some people evolve. Edit: I made a joke that could well be misconstrued and have decided that it probably crossed the line so have deleted it.

Meh. I wish I could say the ladies knocked it out of the park, but the Olbermann appearance was pretty awkward. I can't say I'd have done any better.

Apparently at least one of the ladies will be on with Olbermann tonight on MSNBC. 8ET/7CT I'm not sure which story it will be, but probably #4 (the 2nd story.) Edit: If you're watching the rerun, it's the #1 story (the final story) with about 5 minutes left in the show.