[ralph23]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 17 2007, 10:39 AM, said:

But Michael Moore nude at the Oscar ceremony would certainly be inapprobriate.

This one's mighty hard to pass up, but I'll show some restraint

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Oct 17 2007, 11:10 AM, said:

Its no different than being invited to a wedding. You look, dress, and act the part, and you don't make your hosts or the other guests feel uncomfortable.

It's very different, at a wedding you are there to honor someone else. When you win the medal everyone else is there to honor you. I would not be bothered if a bride held up I'M GOING TO DISNEY during her ceremony.

[ralph23]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 17 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

Hi Ralph,

just to make it clear, I did not make a comment
if the specific action, which triggered this thread,
was approbriate or not.
I just answered the general question "Which signs
are appropriate?", and i was trying to leave out
emotions.

Actually, my comment -- the one to which you responded -- was "I'm not OK with them, as supposed representatives of the USA, ridiculing & mocking & showing disrespect for the national anthem."

You responded "Sometimes that is the right thing to do. It is extreme and you must be wary but sometimes it is right."

I agree with that sentiment. I think most everyone would, frankly.

My response to your comment, in turn, was, if that was their intent, then let them clarify it. Let them say, "We have no respect for the anthem because we have none for our country. It's as bad as Nazi Germany at its worst. Decent people should rebel in the streets."

If that is how they feel, they should have the courage to say so.

(Or maybe they just feel that silly songs and silly flags are silly silly outdated nationalism-patriotism, and modern cosmopolitan folks like them need to show everyone the way.)

If that is not how they feel, they should have the courage to simply apologize for the disrespect and bad taste they have shown. Not for criticizing Bush ... heaven knows, he gets criticized night and day. Not for holding up a sign. The sign is a false issue. And if they don't know what to apologize for ..which I suspect.... then that is just a sad statement on the State of the Union today.

[jonottawa]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 02:15 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 17 2007, 08:37 AM, said:

PS: I did not vote "All signs are appropriate", because I have
a line I wont cross, and everybody should have such a line, but
you cant define the line.

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.

[HeavyDluxe]

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

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.

My goodness! Aren't we ever opinionated.

[jdonn]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 09:15 AM, said:

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".

I'm not sure I agree. There are many people in the world (probably very few bridge players though) who knowingly do things that even to them are inappropriate.

I actually think "whatever the sign bearer thinks is appropriate" is a good rule, as long as no potential sign bearers have some sort of medical mental impairment that would harm their normal judgment. I like this rule because to me it is intent that matters. This is how I try my hardest to judge people in general, by their intent.

[kenberg]

I have no trouble with the words "all", "some", "no", "signs" but the word "appropriate" drives me up a wall. It once had a meaning: Someone asks if you would like cream in your coffee and you respond, inappropriately, "My name is Fred". Now it means almost anything. Is it appropriate for Lindsy Lohan to demonstrate to the world that she doesn't wear underwear? Is it appropriate for Larry Summers (that was his name?) to give his opinion on why there are not more women in academic positions? Is it appropriate to drive a car while text messaging? Legal or illegal I understand. Wise or stupid I at least have opinions. Appropriate or inappropriate? Dunno.


So

Should folks hold up signs when receiving an award? I would rather they didn't.

Should they be tarred and feathered? Naw. (That would be inappropriate.)

Should anyone try to regulate this? Only if for some reason they absolutely must.

Between Anarchy and the Rule of Law there is room for judgment (good and bad) and for social pressure.

[BillHiggin]

jdonn, on Oct 17 2007, 12:04 PM, said:

This is how I try my hardest to judge people in general, by their intent.

And that is how people ought to be judged. Actions are a different story. Actions should be judged by their appropriatness irregardless of the intent of the actors.

The individuals involved are to be congratulated for their fine performance at the bridge table.
Their actions at the award ceremony (not them as individuals) are to be condemened as completely inappropriate at a formal occasion.

Black power salutes are inappropriate at Olympic awards ceremonies.
Michael Moore and the Oscar ceremonies themselves are a mockery (goal for many of the female finalists - dress as close to nude as you can get away with. For everyone - do whatever it takes to get press coverage).

[BillHiggin]

It is important to recognize that an awards ceremony honors both the individuals and the organization they represent. The flag display and national anthem should be considered as tributes to that organization more than to the individuals (who may have quite tenuous ties to that nation).

When opinions are expressed at such a ceremony, they will often be taken (whether that was the intention or not) as reflecting the opinions of the represented organization. That is what makes this inappropriate. It is also the reason that the USBF has every right to demand an apology.

[jdonn]

BillHiggin, on Oct 17 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

When opinions are expressed at such a ceremony, they will often be taken (whether that was the intention or not) as reflecting the opinions of the represented organization.

It is the people taking them as they were not intended and making these silly assumptions who cause the problem. It should not be necessary for a disclaimer on the sign that says "this sign does not necessarily reflect the view of any people who are not up here holding the sign" because that goes without saying.

Quote

Actions should be judged by their appropriatness irregardless of the intent of the actors.

Actions should be judged by the intent of the people making them IM very strong O. Judging people and judging actions are the same thing. When you judge people, your data source is their actions.

[cherdano]

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 it would have been appropriate to be more explicit.

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.

[ralph23]

BillHiggin, on Oct 17 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 17 2007, 12:04 PM, said:

This is how I try my hardest to judge people in general, by their intent.

And that is how people ought to be judged. Actions are a different story. Actions should be judged by their appropriatness irregardless of the intent of the actors.

Who was it (if anyone famous) who said "We judge ourselves by our intent; we judge others by their actions." ?

And the two are deeply intertwined. This law school hypo comes to mind: Simon hates the King and wants to kill him. But, he loves the Queen and thinks she is wonderful. A carriage carrying the royal couple comes along, and everyone knows it carries both of them.

Simon tosses a bomb in it, with the desire of killing the King. Of course, it blows the royal couple to smithereens.

Simon is charged (among other things) with murder of the Queen. His plea: I didn't intend to kill her. And he shows by lots of evidence how much he loved her.

Did he intend to kill her? (True, he didn't want to kill her; but did he intend to?)

[hotShot]

BillHiggin, on Oct 17 2007, 07:39 PM, said:

When opinions are expressed at such a ceremony, they will often be taken (whether that was the intention or not) as reflecting the opinions of the represented organization. That is what makes this inappropriate. It is also the reason that the USBF has every right to demand an apology.

Since when have organizations the right to vote?
Since when have organizations parents or other family members?

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

[ralph23]

jdonn, on Oct 17 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

Actions should be judged by the intent of the people making them IM very strong O.

Yes of course. And the criminal law in particular is full of examples: Actions X, Y & Z, when performed by Actor Q, may entail one set of consequences if accompanied by Intent A, and an entirely different set if accompanied by Intent B.

OK, so how do you determine intent? Hmmm. Well, you could ask Q. Of course, he may lie and he certainly (in the crime context) has ample motive to lie. Or he may may confuse his motive v. his desire v. his intent.

Or you could look to circumstances.

Or even look to X Y & Z themselves! Sometimes (not always) the actions carry the intent on their face. But it's generally a very vexing problem.....

[fred]

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.

However, it does appear that at least a few people really did not understand the question I was trying to ask. So here is an attempt to re-phrase the original question so that there is no ambiguity. If you or anyone else feels inclined to analyze this word-for-word, be my guest but I don't think I can make it any more clear than this:

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

You can assume that there are no explicit rules laid out by the WBF, the host country, or the player's National Bridge Federation that cover this situation (if there were than this becomes a non-issue - obviously you should follow the rules that you agreed to when you accepted the invitation to play in the tournament).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jtfanclub]

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

- No.

However, I think the relevant question should be:

"If, during the closing ceremonies of the World Bridge Championships, a player who is receiving his or her medal on the podium displays a politically-oriented sign that is big enough for the audience to read, should the person be punished by one of Bridge's Sanctioning Bodies?"

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

After all, that's really the crux of the matter, isn't it?

[helene_t]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 08:23 PM, said:

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.

I don't think so. I see a lot of genuine-looking confusion about what the question was. And I don't think I'm too naive, I generally consider myself a very cynical person.

[Cascade]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 12:32 PM, said:

Hannie, on Oct 17 2007, 12:12 AM, said:

Can something be tasteless and still be appropriate?

If you allow some signs then this will be a matter for the WBF Sign Approval Committee to decide. They will also have to decide what constitutes "tasteless" (and perhaps appoint a sub-committee for that purpose).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

The sole important aim in life is to have as many sub-committees as possible so the answer must be some.

I vote that I am not on the sub-committee

[jonottawa]

'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.

[fred]

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

'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.

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