Is this behavior appropriate for a star?

[bid_em_up]

Setting aside the Wikipedia definition of non-profit organization for a moment, there is a big difference between a non-profit organization and a "for profit" company that is simply not making a profit.

 

I could be mistaken, but it appears (to me) that you think that just because BBO is likely to not be making a profit, that it is by default, a non-profit company. That inference cannot be made.

UGHHH!!!! Long explanatory rant thought better of and shortened :o (none of these smilies look frustrated).

 

<sarcasm> No kidding?!?!?! You must be joking? </sarcasm>

 

If you read more carefully what I write, I think you'll find that I am one of the more articulate and clearly spoken posters around. I go much farther out of my way than most people to be detailed and explicit, as a general rule, and not just on this forum. That's the primary reason my posts tend to be so long. And your poor assumptions about what I'm saying here are denied by things I've already said. I explicitly said that this definition doesn't match IRS tax codes. I'm well aware that there's a specific application process for the status, that it has certain exacting standards, and that it can be pulled (notably the IRS has recently asked for the financial records of a handful of so-called "mega-churches" because of questions regarding the mishandling of funds).

 

Here's the important point: CONCEPTUALLY, that definition matches my understanding of BBOs raison d'être. In combination with my guess that BBO hasn't turned a profit, this implies (to me) that their aim is to be non-profit (or not-for, I've never been clear on the distinction).

 

But I was already perfectly well aware of everything you wasted your time saying.

You know Aaron, for all the arrogance contained in this post, I think if you go back and read your supposedly well written verse, you will find that it says exactly what I stated that it appeared to. I admit I was surprised by it, and was trying to make sure that you weren't actually saying what I was reading, and simply clarifying just in case.

 

Especially since more than one of us apparently thought it said the same thing. It wasnt just me.

[fred]

Our home page (www.bridgebase.com) contains a link for our privacy policy. It also contains link to a "letter from Fred" that explains the history of BBO and the nature of our (for profit) company.

 

I am sure no harm was intended, but IMO only harm can result from public speculation on our own web site about:

 

- BBO's legal rights or lack thereof

- BBO's profitability or lack thereof

 

If you feel like you must discuss these issues, I would appreciate it if you could take this discussion somewhere else. I do not want to be put in a position where I have to either ignore the (mostly) incorrect speculations about our business or correct them by providing information that my business partners and I consider to be sensitive and/or private.

 

Thanks,

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[finally17]

The word public is intentional there, referring to a variety of things: businesses and publicly owned buildings and land, etc, but not including private clubs and schools and churches.

Are you suggesting that all 501©(3) entities are private?

No, I'm suggesting that it sounded like you thought the ADA was indiscriminately applied. If you're not, no matter, it was still interesting information to post.

 

Anyway, edited after having read Fred's post. Sorry, don't see why it's harmful but I'll stop.

[TimG]

As for this non-profit thing, BBO is obviously a for-profit organization. It is possible that it was originally set up as a hobby project so maybe it used to be non-profit, but not these days.

In the US, it takes jumping through some hoops in order to establish an entity as a non-profit and non-profit and hobby are two very different things.

[HedyG]

hmmmmmmm..................

what was this thread about?

maybe you should start a new one or get back to the subject or stop

[mr1303]

Getting back to the original point, as a general rule I would say that obviously it is inappropriate behaviour if sent to someone who found it offensive.

 

However, a second point was made by someone who said that BBO should investigate without an official complaint being made. This I am against since say (for example) I was playing on here with my girlfriend/wife. I then (for example) sent her a private message suggesting something intended for her ears only (I won't go into details for obvious reasons). This conversation may be perfectly normal in the circumstances of our relationship.

 

2 weeks later I find myself banned from BBO for sexual harrassment or similar. This idea smacks of Big Brother (as in 1984, not the TV programme) and the Thought Police.

 

I think it would set a very dangerous precident to start monitoring private chat before a complaint is formally made.