[Echognome]

luke warm, on Oct 17 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

i think you understood everything just fine, helene... i think the point is that the word 'appropriate' (if the answer is 'some') has to be defined by someone.. you agree? if you do, who defines it? if the ones displaying the signs, then it follows that those same people will think that *some* signs are inappropriate ... see? that means that the answer "some signs" has no meaning, or is the same as "all signs"

there is an internal inconsistency with that position, imo... and i still think those who said all signs (or even some signs, since the two are interchangeable) should be allowed are being dishonest (re: jon's iran diatribe)... there a signs they'd hate and want to disallow

See, you are arguing based on a contingency with which we do not hold agreement.

You are finding an inconsistency based on an "if" statement, where in particular, I'm referring to "if the ones displaying the signs..". This doesn't make any sense. You are building in the inconsistency by making this claim. Why would those that believe in some signs think that it would be a good idea that everyone determines their own level of appropriateness? That would lead to all signs. But that is not what anyone is arguing, so it's just a straw man.

You have to have an external group, committee, whatever determine what is appropriate. This is not impossible. I mentioned about that Codes of Conduct were already prevalent. This is common enough in employment. We have a booklet at work setting out one for us. Would it be a fair argument to say that if we believe their should be some restrictions on conduct that it means we think everyone should determine for themselves what's appropriate? Why no! The firm's lawyers and executives decide. Crazy!

[han]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 17 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 08:15 AM, said:

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

Well, maybe you should have. Apparently most posters understood "sign" as "sign" not as "political sign".
For some posters there is also a difference between "not appropriate" and "needs to be sanctioned/punished by the WBF/USBF when it happens". They way I understand you, there is none for you.

I believe you, but to me it also sounds like some of the posters who tried to pick apart the words of my question know perfectly well what I was asking - they were simply trying to avoid having to back down from their earlier positions by providing the only sensible answer to the question I asked.

This poll was obviously motivated by a discussion Roland started in the other thread. In that other thread Roland said that no signs were appropriate even a sign to their mum. And when I asked him if he really meant no signs he confirmed this, no signs at all.

Now you claim that obviously you meant political signs, why should that be obvious?

And again you make it sound like I was trying to avoid the question. I assume you consider me as one of the people who were trying to avoid the question since you answered to my question with hilarious sarcasm. Turns out I asked the wrong question, instead of asking what you meant by "appropriate", I should have asked what you meant by "sign"!

I clearly answered your question by saying that, no, I don't think the award ceremony is the right place for a political sign, and no, I don't think that this necessarily means these ladies should be punished.

It seems to me that instead you have instead slightly changed position during this discussion. In your first post you said you were not upset and that you found it in fact amusing. Now it seems like this subject is of great importance to you, even starting your own poll in the watercooler (which I don't recall you have ever done). Has your position changed because you have now given it more thought, or because there has been such a fierce discussion that you are trying to "win"?

[Codo]

fred, on Oct 18 2007, 03:23 AM, said:

During the closing ceremonies of the World Bridge Championships, should a player who is receiving his or her medal on the podium display a politically-oriented sign that is big enough for the audience to read?

- No
- Depends on the words on the sign
- Yes

Hi Fred,

I am a bid late to the show, but I join the "some" camp.
I know that this camp has a problem in deciding what is allowed and what is forbidden. But you have the problem where to take the borderline anyway:

If you allow "all sings", is it still allowed to write something about other countries? We had the question whether "free Tibet" is allowed or not. And a second problem: Where does the bad taste start? We did not vote for Bush? We hate Bush? Bush is an A....e? Somewhere there must be a border.

If you allow "no signs" and say: No written posters big enough to read. Okay, seems easy. What about photos showing f.e. Norwegian ships killing whale babies?
Surely this is forbidden too? What if you wear green belts and green belts are the sign for the Residence in Absurdistan? What if you burn the German flag as a protest against our regime? What if you wave a flag with "God bless America!"
What about a poster with chinese/persian or russian letters? This can be art for you and me but maybe it contents messages we just cannot read?

My point is: You have to define the borderline in any case, no matter if you say all, none or some signs. And there will always be a grey area. But you cannot stop it. Life is living ain a grey arera and that is okay.

I am in the "some" camp, because sometimes people need a theatre to show the world some real problems, because the world ignores these. So I had respect if someone shows a poster at the price giving ceremony like: Help Durfar! Or Freedom for Mandela! Stop Hitler!

The picture from mexico 68 with the two 200 meter runners is still in my head. So they at least showed some peoples that there is a problem in the US. I am not the judge whether they served their country and/or at least the coloured people with their gesture, but at least they started some discussions.

[kenberg]

Obviously I should stop posting and get a life but here I am again.

Many of the hypothetical signs are far fetched (Nuke Norway). Try this: The US Senate recently reported out of committee a resolution condemning Turkey for its actions, or rather the Ottoman Empire's actions, against Armenians in the early part of the previous century. Never mind what my views are on this. It seems very possible someone with strong feelings could weigh in on this with signs at some awards ceremony somewhere. This is something I really hope does not happen in bridge. The Bush thing, I believe, was intended as a bit of a prank. Hardly a big deal since joking about presidents is a national pastime here. I can well imagine, although it didn't happen, a VC winner of a few years back displaying a sign saying "I did not have sex with that man". A joke. But the resolution about Turkey is a serious matter.

I would like to think that players, whatever their feelings on it, would not turn an awards ceremony into a propaganda event. This has not happened before, and as far as I am concerned it really still hasn't happened, and I sincerely hope that this remains the case. Whatever view is expressed, no doubt some in the audience would feel entitled to strongly speak for the other side of the issue. The obligation to sit quietly expires when the awards ceremony is changed into a propaganda event. And then where are we?



Really, I feel so far, so good. No doubt many players have read all of our brilliant comments and will take to heart the reasons for asking for restraint. Go pick a fight somewhere else.

[fred]

Hannie, on Oct 17 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 17 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 08:15 AM, said:

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

Well, maybe you should have. Apparently most posters understood "sign" as "sign" not as "political sign".
For some posters there is also a difference between "not appropriate" and "needs to be sanctioned/punished by the WBF/USBF when it happens". They way I understand you, there is none for you.

I believe you, but to me it also sounds like some of the posters who tried to pick apart the words of my question know perfectly well what I was asking - they were simply trying to avoid having to back down from their earlier positions by providing the only sensible answer to the question I asked.

This poll was obviously motivated by a discussion Roland started in the other thread. In that other thread Roland said that no signs were appropriate even a sign to their mum. And when I asked him if he really meant no signs he confirmed this, no signs at all.

Now you claim that obviously you meant political signs, why should that be obvious?

And again you make it sound like I was trying to avoid the question. I assume you consider me as one of the people who were trying to avoid the question since you answered to my question with hilarious sarcasm. Turns out I asked the wrong question, instead of asking what you meant by "appropriate", I should have asked what you meant by "sign"!

I clearly answered your question by saying that, no, I don't think the award ceremony is the right place for a political sign, and no, I don't think that this necessarily means these ladies should be punished.

It seems to me that instead you have instead slightly changed position during this discussion. In your first post you said you were not upset and that you found it in fact amusing. Now it seems like this subject is of great importance to you, even starting your own poll in the watercooler (which I don't recall you have ever done). Has your position changed because you have now given it more thought, or because there has been such a fierce discussion that you are trying to "win"?

To answer your questions/comments:

1. I thought my poll question was obvious in its meaning. I was certainly not trying to cloud the issue by posing a foggy question. I actually was hoping and expecting that the simplicity of the question and the stark choices for the answers would help bring some clarity to the issue.

I don't even know if I had read any of the hi-mom-related posts at the time I created the poll. If I did then it did not occur to me that people would lump such signs into my question. If I had read one of those posts at the time and thought about it more I might well have worded the question differently.

Anyways, apparently the question was not obvious to many people. I apologize for this confusion. It was not intentional.

2. No I did not consider you one of the people who was intentionally trying to evade the question.

3. I am still not upset by what the Venice Cup winners did. I am actually trying to wind down my involvement in this thread (mostly because it is interfering with my work), but since your post addressed me directly I thought I should respond.

If I am trying to "win" is certainly not for the sake of "winning".

If someone can convince me I am wrong, I will be the first to shake his or her hand and make a post saying that I have switched camps. I am trying to be open-minded about this possibility (which I admit is hard given my level of certainty).

I am not one of those people who has a hard time admitting when he is wrong.

The reason I have persisted is because I have a strong sense that I am right and because it surprises me that several people I have come to respect intellectually and morally do not seem to see the light. I would have not have thought that this issue would be so divisive among such a bright group of people. To me it is beyond obvious that "no signs" is the only sensible answer.

I think if you reread some of my posts from other threads you will find that it is rare for me to be so opinionated about anything. Even in matters concerning bridge (where, compared to the "average forums reader", I arguably have a right to be opinionated) I try to express my opinions in a non-opinionated way.

I don't say "2-way Reverse Drury is terrible" and leave it at that. Instead I will typically say "I don't like 2-way Reverse Drury, but plenty of players who are at least as good as me do like it. Here is why I don't like it...".

I hope that helps explain things. Now I am really am going to try to make an exit from this discussion and get back to work

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[han]

Back to work, sounds good!

[pclayton]

Hannie, on Oct 17 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

Back to work, sounds good!

Work? Whats that?

[Walddk]

pclayton, on Oct 18 2007, 01:44 AM, said:

Hannie, on Oct 17 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

Back to work, sounds good!

Work? Whats that?

Something that often interferes with pleasure However, I am fortunate enough to have been able to make my hobby my job, so I will not complain. Fred is not complaining either; he is in the same camp (work = hobby).

Roland

[TimG]

BillHiggin, on Oct 17 2007, 09:11 AM, said:

TimG, on Oct 17 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

BillHiggin, on Oct 17 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

Those who lump jewlrey sized religious emblems or small symbolic ribbons in with signs that can be read at a significant distance (further than personal conversation spacing) are simply trying to cloud the issue. You either have good sense or you don't.

NO SIGNS!

The message of the jewelry or ribbons may be more clear than the sign. If you read through the threads, it doesn't seem that people can come to agreement about what this particular sign meant.

What the sign meant is totally irrelevant. It is the sign itself that violated decorum.

So, you can send a message with jewelry or a ribbon, but not with a sign? What about a pin? Or, is that jewelry?

[TimG]

hotShot, on Oct 17 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

I think that at least most bridge player are smart enough to distinguish between athlete and official spokesmen.

Are you calling bridge players athletes?

[glen]

Confused by the original question, I replied that signs would need to be relevant positive and polite. Now that I find out solely "political signs" were meant, then since these are not relevant to the bridge event they are not appropriate. If the team wishes to display such signs, they should collect medals, finish the closing ceremony, leave the event building (and perhaps the event country if no freedom of protest there) and then display political signs. However if the team had to overcome the opposition of the president to play in the event (perhaps they held up inappropriate signs in 2006), then a sign would be relevant, and it would be just a case of making it positive and polite.

When my country wins a big bridge event I vastly prefer something like this:

Salt Lake Olympic Gold

Notice no ties for the players (who needs them!) and nice representation of country colours.

[jonottawa]

officeglen, on Oct 18 2007, 03:43 AM, said:

Confused by the original question, I replied that signs would need to be relevant positive and polite. Now that I find out solely "political signs" were meant, then since these are not relevant to the bridge event they are not appropriate. If the team wishes to display such signs, they should collect medals, finish the closing ceremony, leave the event building (and perhaps the event country if no freedom of protest there) and then display political signs. However if the team had to overcome the opposition of the president to play in the event (perhaps they held up inappropriate signs in 2006), then a sign would be relevant, and it would be just a case of making it positive and polite.

When my country wins a big bridge event I vastly prefer something like this:

Salt Lake Olympic Gold

Notice no ties for the players (who needs them!) and nice representation of country colours.

Who's that guy over on the far left wearing white sneakers? Wow, if Fred ever catches up with him I'll bet he gives him a piece of his mind on what appropriate decorum at an awards ceremony is.

[helene_t]

fred, on Oct 18 2007, 01:37 AM, said:

The reason I have persisted is because I have a strong sense that I am right and because it surprises me that several people I have come to respect intellectually and morally do not seem to see the light. I would have not have thought that this issue would be so divisive among such a bright group of people. To me it is beyond obvious that "no signs" is the only sensible answer.

In such a case one may wonder to what extent we really have different opinions, and to what extent we are just talking about different things.

To me it sounds as if you are arguing that it is logically impossible to hold the view that "some" signs are appropriate (acceptable?) to the WBF while at the same time denying the necessity of a committee that was mandated to approve specific signs a priori.

As has been argued by others (Arend, Gnome), this is simply not true because there is an option (not necessarily the only, or most desirable option) of having some vague rule saying that award winners are expected to show respect for the ceremony, or such. In the unlikely event that WBF officials (or delegates, or whoever) thought that there had been such a gross violation of that rule that it was necessary for WBF to make a formal WBF statement about it, then some ad hoc committee , or meeting (or some existing WBF body) could be given a mandate to deal with the specific case.

Another option (Jon, Richard) would be to say that there are signs that are inappropriate in the sense that WBF officials and delegates would be pissed off if they appeared, but nevertheless WBF will not take any action in such a case since they consider it the best strategy to kill the offenders by silence and leave the social pressure thing to the community. One could argue that if no action will be undertaken anyway, the need for clear rules is much less urgent.

If your point is that this exercise in rhetorics is silly because it should be obvious to everybody that a 40*25 cm sign carrying a political message can never do the award ceremony any good, then I'm prepared to support your POV since you obviously know more about this specific ceremony than I do. But I thought that the question was about signs more generally. Also, the fact that you mentioned a committee made me think you were talking about offenses requiring some formal reaction from the WBF.

25*40 cm picture of deceased teammate? No problem
25*40 cm picture of dog? Maybe bad taste, but not an issue
25*40 cm regional flag? Difficult. Frisian flag will offend no-one, I think. Corsican might, but should that matter to WBF? I don't think so but I might be wrong.
25*40 cm religious symbol? Personally I would find this much worse than a Corsican flag, but maybe the WBF consensus is otherwise. I wouldn't know.

Is "inappropriate" a stronger word than "bad taste"? If so, where is the border? Should all inappropriate display lead to some WBF statement? Or even to a sanction? If not, where is the border?

Jimmy said:

i think the point is that the word 'appropriate' (if the answer is 'some') has to be defined by someone.. you agree?

No. Even if one opts for the simple solution "no sign" (not unreasonable IMHO) there will be a need to draw the line somewhere else. A dress code committee? Jewelry committee? Fortunately, that is not necessary. For the most part, the ethical systems of human societies rely on common sense rather than explicit rules. On social pressure rather than formal sanctions. This thread gives the impression that WBF is an exotic society with an obsession for explicit rules and formal sanctions. I find that hard to believe.

[fred]

jonottawa, on Oct 18 2007, 04:19 AM, said:

officeglen, on Oct 18 2007, 03:43 AM, said:

Confused by the original question, I replied that signs would need to be relevant positive and polite.  Now that I find out solely "political signs" were meant, then since these are not relevant to the bridge event they are not appropriate.  If the team wishes to display such signs, they should collect medals, finish the closing ceremony, leave the event building (and perhaps the event country if no freedom of protest there) and then display political signs.  However if the team had to overcome the opposition of the president to play in the event (perhaps they held up inappropriate signs in 2006), then a sign would be relevant, and it would be just a case of making it positive and polite.

When my country wins a big bridge event I vastly prefer something like this:

Salt Lake Olympic Gold

Notice no ties for the players (who needs them!) and nice representation of country colours.

Who's that guy over on the far left wearing white sneakers? Wow, if Fred ever catches up with him I'll bet he gives him a piece of his mind on what appropriate decorum at an awards ceremony is.

C'mon! This was the Olympics and I was the only one dressed like an athlete

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

fred, on Oct 18 2007, 03:35 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 18 2007, 04:19 AM, said:

officeglen, on Oct 18 2007, 03:43 AM, said:

Confused by the original question, I replied that signs would need to be relevant positive and polite.  Now that I find out solely "political signs" were meant, then since these are not relevant to the bridge event they are not appropriate.  If the team wishes to display such signs, they should collect medals, finish the closing ceremony, leave the event building (and perhaps the event country if no freedom of protest there) and then display political signs.  However if the team had to overcome the opposition of the president to play in the event (perhaps they held up inappropriate signs in 2006), then a sign would be relevant, and it would be just a case of making it positive and polite.

When my country wins a big bridge event I vastly prefer something like this:

Salt Lake Olympic Gold

Notice no ties for the players (who needs them!) and nice representation of country colours.

Who's that guy over on the far left wearing white sneakers? Wow, if Fred ever catches up with him I'll bet he gives him a piece of his mind on what appropriate decorum at an awards ceremony is.

C'mon! This was the Olympics and I was the only one dressed like an athlete

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I can safely say that Fred is a T-shirt guy, at as well as away from the bridge table. However, on several occasions I have seen him wearing a collar shirt, and hold tightly now, even a dinner jacket!

Fred simply adjusts to the occasion and does what various organisers expect him to. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".

Roland

[fred]

Roland is correct, but when I started playing bridge I was not like this. There was a time when I would always wear jeans, a t-shirt, and tennis shoes and I my shaving schedule was purely a function of itchiness.

Nowadays I am (unhappily) willing to make an exception when the occasion calls for it.

I suppose I have grown up...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

fred, on Oct 18 2007, 09:16 AM, said:

...my shaving schedule was purely a function of itchiness.

Amen brother, amen.

[pclayton]

fred, on Oct 18 2007, 06:16 AM, said:

my shaving schedule was purely a function of itchiness.

For you? Or for Sheri?

[fred]

pclayton, on Oct 18 2007, 04:48 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 18 2007, 06:16 AM, said:

my shaving schedule was purely a function of itchiness.

For you? Or for Sheri?

Yes

[jtfanclub]

[quote name='ralph23' date='Oct 17 2007, 04:45 PM'] [quote name='ralph23' date='Oct 17 2007, 10:40 PM']
So I'll ask again: I think you're now saying that you WOULD support some sanction or action against the maker of the pro-Hitler statement, yes? [/quote]
And here's where the problem with this whole thread lies...

This was, in fact, the original question you asked:

[quote]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 ?[/quote]

You, and a number of people on this thread, have gone directly from "Is this OK with you" to "support some sanction". This is why I feel that Fred's question just confuses the issue. Certainly a lot of people here seem to feel that it's not OK with them personally (whatever that means) but are not in favor of sanctioning.

I, personally, feel that bridge players for the BB and similar events should be selected not just for their bridge ability but for their professionalism. If they're boorish, whether it's groping unwilling spectators, loud complaining that their opponents are cheaters, or holding up signs that could potentially be offensive to some, then the selection board should not select them. And I'm willing to let the board do its job and not feel the need for a more direct method of punish them. Them meaning the boorish players, not the board. I think.