[Walddk]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

By the way, if the picture is to be believed it was just one person. If the others on the team are even considered for some kind of punishment that would be even larger of an outrage. What are they supposed to do, leave the stage and start booing?

You are too naive for comfort if you think that this was the work of one person. Unless "We" is "pluralis majestatis". I don't think Debbie Rosenberg is royal.

Roland

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 09:45 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

By the way, if the picture is to be believed it was just one person. If the others on the team are even considered for some kind of punishment that would be even larger of an outrage. What are they supposed to do, leave the stage and start booing?

You are too naive for comfort if you think that this was the work of one person. Unless "We" is "pluralis majestatis". I don't think Debbie Rosenberg is royal.

Roland

I'm not saying they didn't know. For all you know any of them objected. Or just didn't care. I'm sorry, if they stood up there with a sign that says "Roland didn't vote for Bush" then should you be sanctioned?

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 04:56 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 09:45 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

By the way, if the picture is to be believed it was just one person. If the others on the team are even considered for some kind of punishment that would be even larger of an outrage. What are they supposed to do, leave the stage and start booing?

You are too naive for comfort if you think that this was the work of one person. Unless "We" is "pluralis majestatis". I don't think Debbie Rosenberg is royal.

Roland

I'm not saying they didn't know. For all you know any of them objected. Or just didn't care. I'm sorry, if they stood up there with a sign that says "Roland didn't vote for Bush" then should you be sanctioned?

For obvious reasons I did not, and I would not have either if I had been an American citizen. Again, that is beside the point. We know what they did, not what they did not.

And in case you still think that this was one woman's work, I happen to have evidence to the contrary since at least one more held on to the sign at some point! So do you now believe that it was a team decision or not?

Roland

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 10:01 AM, said:

And in case you still think that this was one woman's work, I happen to have evidence to the contrary since at least one more held on to the sign at some point! So do you now believe that it was a team decision or not?

Roland

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 09:42 AM, said:

...if the picture is to be believed...

Please tell me the crime of any woman who did not hold the sign (if there is any). Failing to boycott the ceremony?

[Walddk]

[quote name='jdonn' date='Oct 14 2007, 05:06 PM'] Roland [/QUOTE]
[quote name='jdonn' date='Oct 14 2007, 09:42 AM']...if the picture is to be believed... [/quote]
Please tell me the crime of any woman who did not hold the sign (if there is any). Failing to boycott the ceremony? [/quote]
It is obvious to anyone that this was a team decision, so they all believed that it was the right thing to do. Therefore, they were all on the podium (plus a minor who is completely innocent and has nothing to do with it). Yes, I know who he is.

Let me repeat so that no misunderstanding is possible. It was an absurd provocation, and they chose the wrong place for it. "Shockingly poor judgement", as fred put it. I concur.

Roland

[jdonn]

Sentencing all the other players to the death chambers because it is "obvious to anyone" they agreed with the decision (which it clearly isn't to a number of people, so you really should tone down the hyperbole) is "shockingly poor judgement".

Of course even if it were shown they all agreed or even they all held the sign I would feel the same way, but needless to say no one's opinion seems to be changing on that front.

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 05:22 PM, said:

Sentencing all the other players to the death chambers because it is "obvious to anyone" they agreed with the decision (which it clearly isn't to a number of people, so you really should tone down the hyperbole) is "shockingly poor judgement".

Of course even if it were shown they all agreed or even they all held the sign I would feel the same way, but needless to say no one's opinion seems to be changing on that front.

I would appreciate if you don't put words into my mouth. Where did I say anything about death sentence? I mentioned "sanction", and yes, I will stick to that view. If you really care about what that should be, let me tell you this:

They should be reprimanded, asked to make a public apology and sign a document where they promise not to do a thing like this again. If they refuse to do either of the two (apology, signature), they should be banned from being selected for a USA team in the future. Call it a warning if you like.

This is far away from the death chambers as far as my interpretation is concerned.

Roland

[Erkson]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

You (not Hrothgar, just a general 'you') try traveling to these tournaments for the first time and having your teammates teach you that if you get in any sort of trouble you are to say you're Canadian until help arrives. You might have a better idea how these ladies feel.

By the way, if the picture is to be believed it was just one person. If the others on the team are even considered for some kind of punishment that would be even larger of an outrage. What are they supposed to do, leave the stage and start booing?

About your first statement : as a matter of fact they actually seem threatened in a dark corner by a bunch of chinese pirats and it is urgent for them to shout ;"we are not Americans, we are Canadians".

About your second statement : it is obvious to everybody except you that they agreed to write the phrase and use the "we".

Are you some kind of lawyer anticipating their defense ?
You might try something else.

[jdonn]

I did not put words in your mouth, that is an obvious figure of speech, when I quote someone directly I use quotations marks. This seems to have caused you to have miss my point entirely that you are jumping to punish/sanction/whatever people that you have no proof at all were involved (or dare I say, no evidence?) I was pretty much saying I am giving up on trying to convince you nothing should be done because you can't be convinced of that and because our opinions are long since expressed, but there is no way you can even consider punishment for a person unless you can show they are guilty of something.

By the way, you are the one putting words in our mouths (well thoughts in our heads, which is equivalent) when you say something is obvious to anyone.

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 05:39 PM, said:

I did not put words in your mouth, that is an obvious figure of speech, when I quote someone directly I use quotations marks. This seems to have caused you to have miss my point entirely that you are jumping to punish/sanction/whatever people that you have no proof at all were involved (or dare I say, no evidence?) I was pretty much saying I am giving up on trying to convince you nothing should be done because you can't be convinced of that and because our opinions are long since expressed, but there is no way you can even consider punishment for a person unless you can show they are guilty of something.

By the way, you are the one putting words in our mouths (well thoughts in our heads, which is equivalent) when you say something is obvious to anyone.

Read the post before your last. I am not the only one. It is obvious to anyone who can add 2 and 4. It was a team effort when they won the Venice Cup, and there is no doubt in my mind that it was a team effort on the podium. They won at the bridge table, but they lost on the podium.

Roland

[jdonn]

Erkson, on Oct 14 2007, 10:35 AM, said:

About your second statement : it is obvious to everybody except you that they agreed to write the phrase and use the "we".

Posted earlier by someone who is not me. And who is not American (I think).

Quote

What confirmation do you have that the whole team was involved? The photos I have seen show that it was only Rosenberg who held the poster, and the poster was about 5 times the size of a postage stamp. Maybe WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR BUSH refers to her and her husband?"

So maybe people can stick to expressing their own opinions and not the opinions of every other person, please?

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 06:30 PM, said:

They should be reprimanded, asked to make a public apology and sign a document where they promise not to do a thing like this again. If they refuse to do either of the two (apology, signature), they should be banned from being selected for a USA team in the future. Call it a warning if you like.

This is far away from the death chambers as far as my interpretation is concerned.

Roland

In your opinion that is...

In my (not so) humble opinion the team should make it perfectly clear that they will sue the USBF if it were to try to apply any such sanction.

As far as I can tell, the USBF doesn't have any regulations that would ban this type of behavior (you, Fred, a number of other folks believe that this action was in poor taste. Josh, myself, and several others don't see anything wrong with). I think that the USBF would have a damn hard time claiming that this action was a clear violation any Code of Conduct.

More important, if the USBF were to start threatening the ability of individuals to practice their livelihood then I think that they will open themselves to a world of hurt. Please recall: Known cheaters have been able to get themselves reinstated through threat of lawsuits. You want to ban pros based on political speech? Grow up...

The correct way to defuse this type of situation is to

1. Ignore the the initial "offense", sidestepping a lot of ambiguity
2. Clarify the regulations to avoid a repeat incident

[Walddk]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 04:05 PM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 14 2007, 07:32 AM, said:

I'd be surprised if the USBF didn't have something similar.

They have. Try this ...

http://usbf.org/docs...Docs/Bylaws.pdf

and look at 3 e. The last part reads:

"Support only those member participants who exhibit the highest
caliber of sportsmanship, personal conduct and ethics".

Judge for yourself whether the women have violated that rule or not. I would be surprised if this case did not reach the Grievance and Appeals Committee. The trouble is that Gail Greenberg is on that committee, but she must surely be out of the decision taking if it comes that far.

Roland

You seem to have skipped this post, Richard. If not, you must think that they showed the "highest caliber of sportsmanship, personal conduct and ethics".

You are obviously entitled to that opinion, but then we see things differently.

Roland

[glen]

Walddk, on Oct 13 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

The incident in Shanghai reminds me of the Olympics in 1968 in Mexico when Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their gloved fists in a Black Power salute and made an iconic image of the time.

TV and mainstream press coverage of Olympics at that moment: huge
TV and mainstream press coverage of closing of World Bridge Championships: nil
Impact of 2007 holding up of sign: except for this thread, nil (aka ironic instead of iconic)

Imo, if they could have put up a sign that would have obtained TV and/or mainstream press coverage, I would have voted for it, under the idea that any publicity is better than the void the bridge community is getting from mainstream media.

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

You seem to have skipped this post, Richard. If not, you must think that they showed the "highest caliber of sportsmanship, personal conduct and ethics".

Your are obviously entitled to that opinion, but then we see things differently.

Roland

I read the original post.

1. I don't think that this incident in question has anything to do with sportsmanship

2. I see nothing wrong with the personal conduct or the ethics displayed by the USA1 Women's team.

Please recall: I'm also one of the individuals who thinks that drug testing bridge players is idiocy. I also didn't get to worked up regarding the behavior of the junior teams in Thailand.

I don't place bridge players up on a pedestal and I'm rarely disappointed by their behavior. I'd argue that we'd all be better off if we didn't confuse the ability to hit a baseball or carry a tune with sainthood...

[Erkson]

hrothgar, on Oct 14 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

Please recall:  Known cheaters have been able to get themselves reinstated through threat of lawsuits.  You want to ban pros based on political speech?  Grow up...

Something must be rotten there.

[hotShot]

Let me ask a simple question?

Who is honored at the award ceremony?

I think it's the winning player.

In what way could a sign saying "We didn't vote for Bush" offend the hosts?

I think this does not affect the Chinese or the wbf at all, if American citizens speak about their own president.

Did they disturb the ceremony for the silver or bronze medalist?

I guess not?

So why should anyone feel offended?

[Erkson]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

Posted earlier by someone who is not me. And who is not American (I think).

You are right.
I am a Canadian, and I didn't vote for Bush.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Oct 14 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

You want to ban pros based on political speech?

Yes I do. Just like they do in for instance football (soccer) and cricket when the authorities believe that they have brought the game into disrepute. They even impose heavy fines.

They don't give them warnings first. Please note that I suggested a warning that would have no effect on their livelihood if they comply.

Roland

[jkljkl]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 11:38 AM, said:

They don't give them warnings first. Please note that I suggested a warning that would have no effect on their livelihood if they comply.

Roland

Well maybe they already landed on some kind of watch-list of some anti-terror-pro-homeland-security-agency and will be harassed for instance when the try to take an aeroplane in future.

Living in germany I am highly sceptical of this Ehre und Vaterland über alles stuff.

ciao stefan