jonottawa

Weren't you just supporting free speech, or was I confused? Gee, here we go with "appropriate" again !! Smearing an entire country because you listen to too much talk radio or watch too much FoxNoise is inappropriate for this forum. Creating a 'common enemy' to rail against is a deplorable political ruse that has overstayed its welcome. When I see people doing it in a forum like this, I'll call them on it. Had the comments come from an Iranian, it's a much closer call and I wouldn't have felt strongly enough to weigh in one way or the other.

I think the comments with respect to Iran are inappropriate and should be removed.

So Robbie Fissure, America's greatest bridge player, wins (with his team) the BB held in Chicago, and holds up a sign stating: "Jews are scum. Shame they were not exterminated long ago like rodents. Hitler was right." Doesn't violate any US laws. First Amendment assures that. Doesn't call for action, immediate or later, and doesn't constitute a clear and present danger. Assume this is OK with you, then ? Post 666 ... Coincidence? Obviously that would be right up there with the 'Nuke Norway' example (thanks for the laugh btw Arend.) This argument basically boils down to personality type. A lot of people are very uncomfortable with uncertainty and want rules to govern everything. I'm not one of them.

Well I would hate to impugn your motives (again), but instead of trying to shift the question to something you think is the crux of the matter, why don't you just answer my rephrased question? Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com If the question is: Would Miss Manners approve? Then the answer is no. If the question is: Would I approve under any circumstances? Then the answer is 'Of course.' Hypothetical: It's 1937 and a team from Germany participates in the world championships. They hold up a sign opposing Hitler's persecution of the Jews. Or it's 2009 and a ragtag band of enterprising Sudanese wins the Bermuda Bowl and holds up a sign calling for the end of genocide in their country. Would Miss Manners approve? No. Would I? Absofreakinglutely. Is the question relevant? Again, no. The relevant questions are whether punishment is warranted and whether additional rules need to be enacted. The only sensible answer to those questions is a resounding NO. Jesus was a rabble-rouser (if you believe biblical accounts.) Gandhi was a rabble-rouser. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a rabble-rouser. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin were rabble-rousers. All of these people recognized that there are some principles worth risking offending a few people for. They also recognized that the power of a legitimate government is derived from the people and that the people have an incontrovertible right to speak out against their own government. 'America right or wrong. When right to be kept right. When wrong to be put right.' I am not sure, but I think you said "it depends on the words on the sign". Now can you answer my other question: How do you propose deciding which words are OK? Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com "The difficulty of defining obscenity was memorably summarized by Justice Stewart in a concurring opinion when he said: "I know it when I see it."" We haven't allowed our inability to precisely define obscenity to force us to outlaw the publication of any materials whatsoever. We shouldn't allow our inability to precisely define what specific words on a sign would be 'beyond the pale' to force us to pass silly rules micromanaging behavior (or outlawing all behavior of a certain type) at a social gathering. As kenberg says, let's cross that bridge in the unlikely event that we come to it and rely on social pressure to regulate behavior in the meantime.

Well I would hate to impugn your motives (again), but instead of trying to shift the question to something you think is the crux of the matter, why don't you just answer my rephrased question? Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com If the question is: Would Miss Manners approve? Then the answer is no. If the question is: Would I approve under any circumstances? Then the answer is 'Of course.' Hypothetical: It's 1937 and a team from Germany participates in the world championships. They hold up a sign opposing Hitler's persecution of the Jews. Or it's 2009 and a ragtag band of enterprising Sudanese wins the Bermuda Bowl and holds up a sign calling for the end of genocide in their country. Would Miss Manners approve? No. Would I? Absofreakinglutely. Is the question relevant? Again, no. The relevant questions are whether punishment is warranted and whether additional rules need to be enacted. The only sensible answer to those questions is a resounding NO. Jesus was a rabble-rouser (if you believe biblical accounts.) Gandhi was a rabble-rouser. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a rabble-rouser. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin were rabble-rousers. All of these people recognized that there are some principles worth risking offending a few people for. They also recognized that the power of a legitimate government is derived from the people and that the people have an incontrovertible right to speak out against their own government. 'America right or wrong. When right to be kept right. When wrong to be put right.'

'Signs' vs 'Political signs' 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' Simply acknowledging that the original poll question was poorly worded instead of impugning the motives of those you disagree with might have been helpful. As has been stated, the crux of the matter is whether the ladies should be punished and/or whether committees should explore this issue and rules micromanaging victory banquet behavior ratified. Poll that instead of polling a mostly irrelevant question that distracts from the essential issue.

I was hoping that someone in the "some" camp would try to define "some" in terms of "whatever the sign bearer thinks is appropriate". That is the same as saying "all". In case you didn't figure it out, the purpose of this poll was to make the absurdity (IMO) of the "some" position crystal clear, something that 16 (at last count) pages of debate in the other thread did not manage to accomplish. I can actually respect the "all" position from a logical/moral point of view. Of course from a practical point of view "all" is also completely absurd. Not that the poll seems to have accomplished this either... :) By the way, I did not think it was necessary for me to be more explicit when I made up the questions for the poll. When I said "signs" I meant political signs big enough so that the audience would notice. When I said "apprropriate" I did not think it was necessary to qualify this with "on the podium at the award ceremony at a bridge World Championships". When I said "are", well you can ask Bill Clinton about what I meant by that :) Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com To call the most logical position absurd is interesting. Anyone who would object to a professional-looking in memoriam sign is not a human being. Anyone who would support an overt threat against someone's life (for instance) is a nihilist or an anarchist. Either of those positions would be absurd. That doesn't mean that you must create a rule or a committee or do anything but ignore what happened in this instance. A more valid poll question would be: Should the WBF and USBF make rules micromanaging behavior at awards banquets? Hrothgar (who interprets the question differently than I do and answers "all",) Helene (who arbitrarily answered "none",) EDIT: and kenberg below have nailed this one, at least in the coherence of their arguments.

If no political statements are to be allowed, let's get rid of the flags and the silly pompous religiously motivated hymns/anthems as well. I nominate 'The Winner Takes it All' by ABBA as the theme song for the victors, regardless of nationality.

I voted most signs are appropriate. Anything I wouldn't get arrested for sticking on a sign I'd carry down to the Capitol or sticking on a T-shirt is fine. The poll itself is biased however, since it assumes that 'appropriateness' is the relevant value at issue. It's not. But as far as appropriateness goes, it's always appropriate for a citizen who wishes to criticize his own government to do so, but particularly at this moment in history. What is certainly NOT appropriate is to sit idly by while the greatest country in the history of the world gets infected by a bunch of neo-conservatives with a decidedly theocratic, fascist agenda who want nothing more than to see America become a banana republic, who have already successfully implemented several policies to facilitate that conversion and who have a realistic shot of achieving their goal if not enough people speak out against them. When my grandchildren ask me what I did when America lost its way, I won't have to answer 'I did nothing, because I didn't want to offend anyone.' Undoubtedly the concern trolls outnumber the patriots on this issue and the USBF will feel differently than I do. I just hope they come up with a common-sense punishment, such as barring offenders from future VICTORY BANQUETS.

And why would they think it was a gaffe? This thread makes it clear that even the public is split, surely the "culprits" don't think it was one. Depends. Its hard to imagine what announcement (if any) is forthcoming, but I would imagine it would contain some form of apology. To me, an apology presupposes that they were at fault for *whatever*. Who knows what they think about the action after the fact? Surely you've done something that you thought at the time was proper, but upon reflection or after consulting with others, you deem it was the wrong thing to do. Redemption is usually in order. If they are willing to fall on their sword over this one, who knows what will happen? I also realize that whatever announcement they make (if there is one) may be a result of coercion. I'm in line with their political views and I think what they did took some guts. I think it showed an utter lack of class and judgement, but it was gutsy. Circular reasoning anyone? Why would they think it was a gaffe? Well, because they might be making an announcement. And in that announcement that they might be making, they might apologize. And surely an apology is evidence of a gaffe, no? :blink:

Other references (aside from my own blog, which just sends people here.) http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/13/17302/475 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=389x2040421

They laughed through the national anthem???? All of them ?? Were they just giddy with excitement and glee, or were they actually making fun of it or ridiculing it? I find the latter alternative sort of hard to believe. Not really that, was it ? The latter I am sorry to say. I understand that you don't approve (thanks!), but I assume Jon does since he didn't comment. If I am wrong, perhaps Jon would care to tell us what he thinks. Roland Since you asked, Roland ... It would never occur to me to mock the playing of the Star Spangled Banner. I have too much respect for the principles upon which this great country was founded and for the men (mostly) who fought and died to defend them. It would never occur to me to condemn someone who lashes out against the current occupant of the Oval Office. I have too much respect for the principles upon which this great country was founded and for the men (mostly) who fought and died to defend them. It would never occur to me to try to have someone barred from playing bridge or raked over the coals because out of an arguably misguided sense of patriotism they behaved in a way that Miss Manners would object to. I make far too many mistakes and have far too many flaws to obsess about other people's shortcomings.

I think you are wrong about this (and just about everything else). It always felt like a privilege and an honor to me. I am guessing that this would be a near universal sentiment among players who have competed in such events. Since you seem to be young (judging from your appearance to say nothing of your words) and since you seem to take yourself seriously as a bridge player, I am going to offer you some free advice (which could easily be worth what you are paying for it) based on my experience as a serious bridge player: If you are to have any hope of being successful in this game you are going to need to undergo a serious attitude adjustment. Otherwise you are going to have a hard time finding and keeping strong players who want to be your partner or teammates. Maybe one day you will be so awesome that people should feel privileged simply to be in your presence, but here in the real world that attitude is just going to piss off the people who can help you. Nobody likes to play on a team with a prima donna. You don't have to take my word for it, but I have seen this happen time and again. The Jlalls of the bridge world get ahead in no small part because better players take an interest in them, not just because they are good but also because their attitudes are good. The talented young players who never grow up rarely get to learn first hand that it really is a privilege to play for your country in the World Championships. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Wow. A little over-the-top (not to mention completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed) don't you think, Fred? Since you brought it up ... I will certainly never represent the US in international bridge competition. I'm nowhere near good enough and don't have the tickets to be. At some point, if I move back North, it's conceivable that I might represent Canada. But that would likely be due mainly to attrition (and also a fair bit of luck) more than anything else. I never said it wasn't an honor. It is indeed that. Much like being POTUS is an honor and a privilege and the person who holds that office should be rightly held to a certain standard. If not by the Congress, then by the media. If not by the media, then by patriots who love the Constitution and the principles on which our great country was founded. That is what duty, honor, country is all about. Do I offend people because I am blunt and outspoken? I do. Has it cost me certain opportunities in life? Undoubtedly it has. Maybe that's why I look so young, though (you're barely 6 years older than me.) D'ya think?

1. As has been stated elsewhere, if a ceremony includes a national anthem and a flag, it is inherently political. To not speak out against this administration, which advocates torture, spying on its own citizens without a warrant, and kidnapping people and holding them indefinitely with insufficient evidence to charge them with anything, would be a greater misbehavior. It's arguably the lack of people who've shown a willingness to do just that which has caused this whole mess in the first place. 2. We have a saying in America. "Don't tread on me." If the event was held in Saudi Arabia, would the women be forced to wear Burqas and those ladies who refused to attend be SOL? Poppycock. Any country privileged enough to host such an event should do so with the awareness that the participants will each have different value systems and will behave accordingly. 3. They can enforce appropriate behavior at the bridge table (as defined by the laws currently in place) all they want. They have no business enforcing behavior of the guests of honor at a social gathering. Finally, if anyone thinks it's appropriate behavior to hijack a Congratulations Norway! thread by bringing up this topic, ... B)

Oops. That Jefferson quote was erroneous. Here's a real one that seems even more pertinent: "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." - Thomas Jefferson

The WBF has no business regulating the behavior of its members away from the table (with possible, very narrow, bridge-related exceptions.) The host country has no business imposing its norms on the participants. It is not a privilege for the best players in the world to compete in the world championships; they have earned that right through years of hard work and by beating the 2nd best their country had to offer. It is a privilege for any country to be allowed to host the Bermuda Bowl. A world championship that bars the best players from competing because they insist on their right to express their beliefs is illegitimate. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson Who knew that so many bridge players were closet autocrats?

Their agreement of 2♦-P-4♥ was to play, not pass or correct. See note 11. http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...wicz-frukaz.pdf So while it looks at first blush like Piotr should have known to correct, Wally should have known better than to make such an ambiguous bid.

Speaking of inappropriateness and the USA 1 Venice Cup team ... Did this issue get resolved satisfactorily? http://stacyjacobs.com/2007/10/11/bbo-commentary

As has been stated by others, if the sign had been political in nature but reflected a less controversial message, such as 'End Poverty' or 'Stop the Genocide in Darfur', I can't imagine it would have been condemned or even questioned by anyone. Unfortunately, because of approximately 6 years of overwhelming bias and propaganda in the US mainstream media, what should be an equally obvious and uncontroversial message has become controversial. To NOT speak out against this administration would be evidence of a far greater lack of patriotism, or at the very least of colossal ignorance. Brainwashed naysayers notwithstanding. Wingnuts will vilify the Dixieberg Chicks. Cowards will waffle. I applaud them for their courage.

I believe the auction went 2♦-X-4♥-X-P-P-P

It seems like BBO already has the technology to allow multiple languages (while each user would only see the language of his/her choice.) Members of various 'clubs' already get broadcasts targeted specifically at them. (Bella's Ball, for instance.) It wouldn't seem that onerous to give users the option of joining say, the Japanese club, and they would 'hear' the broadcast in Japanese. Not a perfect solution, but it uses what BBO already has. Alternatively (more complicated, more expensive, but also more seamless,) you already have ignore chat from enemies, ignore chat from lobby, etc. Couldn't you create a similar category based on language? Each person could perhaps self-identify their language (with English being the default and with multiple selections being possible) and would not see anything typed by someone who self-identifies as a different language (except when seated at a table with/against them or when pmed by them.) This really isn't my issue (since I speak English) but I thought I'd throw those ideas out there. I'm sure they're not particularly original. From what I've read, constructive criticism (that 'always welcome' thing) is what's been offered. I'm not sure the 'huffy, do-nothing whiners who expect miracles and demand everything' (paraphrasing) charge is warranted. But perhaps there's history there that I'm unaware of. I think if you agree with Harald that vugraph coverage is for the audience (and I do) then you do indeed make all reasonable efforts to broadcast each team at least once. I have zero interest in seeing India, or Ireland, or Japan, or Pakistan, or Trinidad and Tobago play. But I suspect that natives of those countries do. I very much wanted to see the Canadians (who generally stunk up the Bermuda Bowl) play on Vugraph once. I got to see that. In my opinion, it's only fair that other countries receive the same courtesy. I strongly suspect that the Vugraph audience would be no smaller and that the goodwill generated (India's on Vugraph, yay! or Japan's on Vugraph, yay!) would be much greater. As to the 'interesting matches' argument, I think that first it's enormously difficult to predict which matches will be interesting (if by interesting, you mean close and generally well played.) Canada vs Italy in the last round was very interesting, for instance, but almost noone would have predicted that ahead of time. Second, I think it goes without saying that you'd schedule the Rodney Dangerfields' Vugraph appearances towards the beginning of the schedule so that come crunch time you're just showing the contenders.

Thx Roland! :)

4 Hearts is sick. 3NT is pushy, but let him play it there and go minus before he has to apologize for anything.

How 'bout giving the Canadian women some love? They're the comeback kids in the Venice Cup and haven't gotten any airtime on BBO.

Sorry if this doesn't work, I'm new here. :o Read my Bridge Base Ambassadors thread if you want to know what this is about.