[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

[jonottawa]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 07:11 PM, said:

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

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.'

[fred]

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 07:31 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 07:11 PM, said:

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

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

[P_Marlowe]

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

<snip>
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

<snip>

Assuming I would be asked to hold the sign on the podium:
Depends heavily on the words on the sign, and it would
require a heavy amount of words to convince me that it
would make some sense.
I may join anyway, because they are my team mates and
friends, but ...

I assume you are speaking about real politics, not Bridge
sports politics.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: My main problem is, I would believe that it
is pointless, not really the answer you want to
hear.

[Al_U_Card]

Reality check....how many Venice cup/bridge related deaths were there?

Now consider how many as a result of little dick taking the US into Iraq?

Maybe we are debating the wrong issue and the lady in question was on the right track?

[jonottawa]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 07:43 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 07:31 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 07:11 PM, said:

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

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.

[mike777]

fred, on Oct 16 2007, 06:40 PM, said:

If you have no idea what this question is about, read this thread.

If you chose "some", please explain how to determine which signs are appropriate.

Anyone who is able to provide a good definition for "some" should surely be considered as a candidate for the soon to be created WBF Sign Approval Committee.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

No signs of any kind but if they do display a sign, not all signs should have the same punishment. Of course all signs should be treated equally, just some more equally than others.

Ultimately the head of the WBF and the head of that teams org(ACBL) hand out a Solomanesque judgement of punishment based on their own common sense.

[hotShot]

Fred here are 2 answers to questions you did not ask:

During the closing ceremonies of the World Bridge Championships, may 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?

Yes, definitely yes! (As long as it's content is legal.)


Would I fell the urge to display a political-oriented sign, if I happen to get a medal for anything.

No. But I support the right to exercise free speech.

[cherdano]

fred, on Oct 17 2007, 12:23 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.

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).

Speaking for myself, I didn't answer the question because I thought you didn't ask the relevant question, maybe because I misunderstood it.

Again, I think here you aren't asking the right question, maybe because I am misunderstanding. In my personal opinion, a player shouldn't hold up a political sign at the closing ceremony, but if he does, it is no big deal, and it doesn't mean he should be punished or sanctioned by the WBF or his federation.

If instead you had asked jtfanclub's question, then I would given you the answer that you wanted to show is absurd: "it depends on the sign". If the bronze medallists of the Bermuda Bowl had held up a sign "Nuke Norway, because all their bridge players are cheaters" then I agree the WBF would need to take a stand on this. If Zia held up a sign "Support Pakistanian-Indian friendship, there is no need to fight about Kashmir" then I would be quite surprised, I would have thought Zia finds more appropriate opportunities to further this cause, but I could not really care (and would equally be surprised if anyone would call for a punishment of Zia).

So in this sense my answer is "some". Does this create the need of a WBF sign approval committee? No. I am tempted to add "of course not". Even without the danger of political signs the WBF might get into the position of having to decide whether the behavior of a participant at the closing ceremony warrants sanctions. Say one contestant makes a bad joke about another team. Inappropriate? Yes. Warranting punishment? No. Say a whole team approaches another team, and each of them spits every member of the other team into his face. Well I would suppose this warrants sanctions.

So there may always be a need to decide whether someones actions are a blatant enough violation of sportsmanship that punishment is called for, and I am sure the WBF can form a committee to deal with such an incident if needed. If there is ever a political sign that possibly violates sportsmanship in a blatant manner, such as the one I invented above, then it can be dealt with on the same basis.

Until this happens (and I am happy to offer anyone a 3-1 bet that there won't be a political sign at a WBF closing ceremony in the next 10 years, no matter what action the WBF takes in this case), there is no need for any committee.

Arend

[ralph23]

hotShot, on Oct 17 2007, 03:59 PM, said:

During the closing ceremonies of the World Bridge Championships, may 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?

Yes, definitely yes! (As long as it's content is legal.)

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 ?

[fred]

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 07:56 PM, said:

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.

Given that what you might find on the other side of the bridge could be a flaming pit, I think it is better to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that such bridges remain uncrossed.

Thanks for answering my questions.

If you care, my answer to what you think of the crux of the matter is this: I have no strong opinions as to what (if anything) the WBF or USBF should do to punish or sanction those who were responsible for this incident. IMO that should depend to a large extent on whatever rules (if any) existed prior to this incident.

And for all I know the people in charge of making these decisions could be in the "some" or "all" camps (though I wouldn't bet on this).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[luke warm]

those who, in response to fred's rephrased question(s), said 'it depends on the sign' are being illogical... those who say 'all signs are acceptable', imo, don't really mean it... i honestly don't believe i'd not be censured, or worse, if i held up a sign derogatory of (for example) mohammed

imo 'it depends' is too subjective and 'all signs' is dishonest

[jonottawa]

ralph23, on Oct 17 2007, 08:12 PM, said:

hotShot, on Oct 17 2007, 03:59 PM, said:

During the closing ceremonies of the World Bridge Championships, may 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?

Yes, definitely yes! (As long as it's content is legal.)

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.

[hotShot]

My knowledge of us laws is not very good.

Assuming you are right, that there are indeed no laws against racist remarks, he should not enter France or Germany (and I think several other European countries) or he will find that he's staying there much longer than he planed.

But I bet he'd be welcome in Iran.

[ralph23]

hotShot, on Oct 17 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

My knowledge of us laws is not very good.

Assuming you are right, that there are indeed no laws against racist remarks, he should not enter France or Germany (and I think several other European countries) or he will find that he's staying there much longer than he planed.

But I bet he'd be welcome in Iran.

May be right about Iran !! And yes, some European countries do have laws forbidding this kind of speech. Which is why I staged the event in Chicago, not Berlin.

But such speech is legal in the US, i.e. state and federal governments are constitutionallly barred from criminally punishing such speech.

So ... even though legal where made, are you saying then that it's NOT ok with you? Or that it is, since it's legal where made?

I guess I was confused as to your view.

[jonottawa]

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

[ralph23]

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

ralph23, on Oct 17 2007, 08:12 PM, said:

hotShot, on Oct 17 2007, 03:59 PM, said:

During the closing ceremonies of the World Bridge Championships, may 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?

Yes, definitely yes! (As long as it's content is legal.)

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 there may be some differences in the speech involved. The Norway sign does call for action albeit in a humorous and whimsical way. And it has a whimsical overtone; no one thinks it's serious.

But I think I infer rightly (?) that you would support sanction of some type against the anti-Semite sign?

[ralph23]

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

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

Weren't you just supporting free speech, or was I confused?

Gee, here we go with "appropriate" again !!

[helene_t]

We had a similar meta-discussion once in a thread that to some appeared to be about reverses after a 2/1. At some point, someone said that the question of whether reverses are in place after a 2/1 is irrelevant, someone else said that that may be so but it happened to be the purpose of the thread, and then Winston came up with the immortal reply: "No, the purpose of this thread is to insult morons who think they know what the purpose of the thread is".

[Walddk]

ralph23, on Oct 17 2007, 10:45 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 17 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

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

Weren't you just supporting free speech, or was I confused?

Gee, here we go with "appropriate" again !!

Only the free speech Jon approves of. Anything else is inappropriate. Mentioning Iran was too much for him it appears. Scared? If yes, of what?

Judging by his other posts, Jon wants to allow all signs. Does that only apply to the podium of a victory ceremony. Is a post in the BBF Forums over the top?

Roland