[jillybean]

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 08:59 AM, said:

Helene, could you please explain to Roland the difference between 'usually' and 'currently'? Thanks.

I prefer Richards approach rather than these innuendoes and sarcasm, everyone knows exactly where they stand.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on Oct 18 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

Here is a copy of an email I just got.

"Follow the Money

Well this reporter has dug a little deeper into the matter.  I just interviewed a Deep Throat informer and can give you the real scoop.

[snip]

One such director is quoted as declaring that if any American says anything against our country (and he obviously believes this was an anti-American statement) on foreign soil is grounds for Treason.

[snip]

Yeah, right. The sender of this email is a troll. I'd believe what he says only {a} after confirmation from truly reliable sources or {b} when on drugs.

Apparently somebody, probably the email sender, but just possibly the "quoted" director of the ACBL either doesn't know or doesn't care what treason against the United States really is. This doesn't qualify by a long shot.

[Al_U_Card]

How are other "national" teams financially supported? Is it their sponsoring organizations? Is it the government? Private donations?

btw Richard, New World Order refers to the masters of the red state idiots.....they are the ones that are getting everything organized to subjugate the peeps and stay rich, powerful and healthy at any cost (to others).

[HedyG]

hrothgar, on Oct 19 2007, 07:40 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 19 2007, 04:24 AM, said:

There apparently already is a movement among some of our ACBL Board of Directors to make serious cuts in this funding.  They do not see the benefit of the ACBL subsidizing our representatives in World competition.  It is feared by those who do see the benefit, that some will use the China Venice Idiot (wow, my Word editor automatically changes b-u-s-h to i-d-i-o-t, does yours?) Bashing Incident as an EXCUSE to kill the funding for our teams.  One such director is quoted as declaring that if any American says anything against our country (and he obviously believes this was an anti-American statement) on foreign soil is grounds for Treason.

Am I suposed to be surprised that the ACBL BoD includes a bunch of idiots? That's been patently obvious for generations.

Its a pretty well known fact that a vocal minority within the ACBL BoD is looking for any excuse to several all ties between the ACBL and the WBF. I don't have any factual information about what motivates these individuals. My assumption is that they are a bunch of "Red State" idiots who have somehow confused the World Bridge Federation with the New World Order. (Perhaps all those funds for Junior Camp are being siphoned away for Black Helicopters and UN sanctioned "Re-Education" camps...) I take comfort in the fact that idiots like this one are over-reacting in such a dramatic fashion.

In short: I really don't care what the extremists think. However, if anyone can point out to any changes at the margin, that might be a bit more interesting.

I still have high hopes that this whole incident can be swept under the carpet. I really don't think that airing all of the dirty linen serves anyone other than the whack jobs and the misogynists... (Its sad that some people feel the need to stoke up the fire and try to turn a minor incident into a cause)

One thing that this does expose is some of the organizational problems facing bridge in the United States.

1. From an organization perspective, members of the ACBL BoD shouldn't have any say in the behaviour of a USBF team. In theory, the ACBL and the USBF should be separate and distinct entities and shouldn't be meddling in one another's affairs. In practice, the whole relationship between the two groups seems quite byzantine. For example, I don't know the extent to which International Funds games in the ACBL are used to subsidize USBF teams. Furthermore, does any of this money get remitted to the Canandians? (Life might get a lot easier if the Canadians did secede from the ACBL...)

2. Associated with this, I don't think that the average ACBL member actually feels any empathy for members of the US international teams. My impression is that players flock to International Fund games, Charity events, and the like because of the lure of extra special masterpoints. (I don't think any of them give a rat's ass for the actual cause being sponsored)

i dont see why anybody should be called idiot or insulted in any other way.surely everybody is trying to do a decent job and it isnt made easy all the time. you disagree with them? how does that make them idiots?
as for airing dirty linen, lets not forget who started doing that.

[jonottawa]

Yes, let's do keep howling about the 'idiots' comment. Anyone else want to weigh in?

Smear an entire country? No problem.

Make a comment like 'Some members of Congress are idiots' or 'Some Texans (my state of residence, btw) are idiots' or 'Some members of this or that board are idiots' and all of a sudden the sky is falling.

And just who exactly DID start airing dirty linen? Adam, or Eve?

[blackshoe]

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

And just who exactly DID start airing dirty linen? Adam, or Eve?

Lilith

[jdonn]

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

Smear an entire country? No problem.

Well really what people are intending to do is smear the politician(s) leading a country, not the people who reside in it. But it's true, the peanut galleries are often careless or thoughtless and end up smearing the innocent people as well, even those who also hate the politician.

It almost makes one think that if one despises an unpopular politician who leads ones country, that one should make sure the world knows not to make the mistake of necessarily associating the people with the leader.

.....

Perhaps by a small sign held up during the only time in their lives that there is a worldwide audience to actually receive the message?

Oops, sorry. Blasphemy.

[jonottawa]

jdonn, on Oct 19 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

Smear an entire country? No problem.

Well really what people are intending to do is smear the politician(s) leading a country, not the people who reside in it. But it's true, the peanut galleries are often careless or thoughtless and end up smearing the innocent people as well, even those who also hate the politician.

It almost makes one think that if one despises an unpopular politician who leads ones country, that one should make sure the world knows not to make the mistake of necessarily associating the people with the leader.

.....

Perhaps by a small sign held up during the only time in their lives that there is a worldwide audience to actually receive the message?

Oops, sorry. Blasphemy.

I wasn't referring to the ladies, Josh. I was referring to the folks in the other thread who decided to take a completely off-topic, gratuitous and baseless swipe at the Iranian people.

One person presented a hypothetical situation:

"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.""

Another person said:

"... But I bet he'd be welcome in Iran."

To which the first person responded:

"May be right about Iran !!"

I seem to be the only person here who found that offensive and completely inappropriate for this type of forum. I wouldn't want something similar said about either of my native lands and while I don't know anyone who lives in Iran or who is from Iran, I'm quite certain they would feel the same way.

If this were a political forum, wingnutty flatulence such as that would be completely acceptable, of course, but it's not.

[jdonn]

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

I wasn't referring to the ladies, Josh. I was referring to the folks in the other thread who decided to take a completely off-topic, gratuitous and baseless swipe at the Iranian people.

I know that. And I wasn't starting an argument with you anyway since we were on the same side. I was just equating one situation to the other. It's funny how all this stuff relates.

[ralph23]

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 19 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

Smear an entire country? No problem.

Well really what people are intending to do is smear the politician(s) leading a country, not the people who reside in it. But it's true, the peanut galleries are often careless or thoughtless and end up smearing the innocent people as well, even those who also hate the politician.

It almost makes one think that if one despises an unpopular politician who leads ones country, that one should make sure the world knows not to make the mistake of necessarily associating the people with the leader.

.....

Perhaps by a small sign held up during the only time in their lives that there is a worldwide audience to actually receive the message?

Oops, sorry. Blasphemy.

I wasn't referring to the ladies, Josh. I was referring to the folks in the other thread who decided to take a completely off-topic, gratuitous and baseless swipe at the Iranian people.

One person presented a hypothetical situation:

"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.""

Another person said:

"... But I bet he'd be welcome in Iran."

To which the first person responded:

"May be right about Iran !!"

I seem to be the only person here who found that offensive and completely inappropriate for this type of forum. I wouldn't want something similar said about either of my native lands and while I don't know anyone who lives in Iran or who is from Iran, I'm quite certain they would feel the same way.

If this were a political forum, wingnutty flatulence such as that would be completely acceptable, of course, but it's not.

Mr. Anything Goes, I think your post is offensive to someone -- don't know who but surely someone ---and should be removed. LOL.

Freedom of speech = bad when Jon's ox (or ox of his Iranian pals) is gored
Freedom of speech = good when someone else's ox is gored

Still too funny for words.

This Water Cooler isn't a political forum? Who made that rule? Oh sorry ... YOU did of course, so it must be true!! ... well maybe it's not a "true" political forum like the presentations of the Venice Cup are but ....

[Aberlour10]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 19 2007, 11:28 AM, said:

How are other "national" teams financially supported?  Is it their sponsoring organizations?  Is it the government?  Private donations?

In the case of Team Poland all of these elements.

There are donations from the main sponsor of the Polish Bridge Union ( biggest software company in the country ), a part from the member fees (PBU), and special goverment's rewards for " top 3 achievements" in the international championships.( open, women,seniors, juniors )

Robert

[jonottawa]

ralph23, on Oct 19 2007, 06:25 PM, said:

Still too funny for words.

If only ...

[mycroft]

I don't know if anything in that letter is accurate, or anything else, for that matter.

I do know that one of the current Administration's goals is to re-equate lese mageste with treason, at least in the minds of the voters; and it appears that they have managed this with a significant fraction. Which is yet another of my reasons why I believe "the terrorists have won", because, well, wasn't one of the major problems the Founding Fathers had with England exactly that?

I am proud to live in a country where I can laugh at a representation of our leader and my former MP (before I moved) as a robot; I can refer to our previous long-term leader as "perfect for the country; fluent in neither official language" (if that sounds like I'm being xenophobic, I am not - look up Jean Chretien and see. Born and raised in Canada, he was almost as famous for his misspeakings as Quayle, in both his native French and his learned English); I can claim that the one before that did his absolute best to sell this country to his friends in business, and we're still trying to fix that; I can disagree with almost everything the previous one believed in while still admiring his skill as a politician and his ability to keep our rather confused country in one piece and moving in vaguely the same direction - and I can, and do, say so in public without worrying about detention, loss of freedom of movement or speech, ostracism, or claims of treason. Not only that, but those leaders themselves, can see, appreciate, and even participate in the humour around themselves - and not get nailed by the media the next day as if the jokes they were playing, obvious to the average third grader, were serious.

I do not believe that that is possible any more in the United States of America. And for that I weep.

As I said, actions have consequences. I think that some actions have consequences that far outweigh the action, and I disapprove of those. I am impressed with the USBF's current handling of the situation, and I have every reason to believe that the equitable solutions will continue from them.

Michael.

[Walddk]

bid_em_up, on Oct 18 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

<snip>

"By a 6-0 vote with Bill Pollack abstaining because of his possible conflict of interest it was agreed that a letter of regret will be written to the president of the Chinese Contract Bridge Association and to Mr. Jose Damiani, President of the World Bridge Federation regarding the incident at the Closing Ceremonies on Saturday, October 13, 2007 in Shanghai when the US Women’s team received their gold medals and remained on stage during the playing of the US National Anthem while holding a sign “we did not vote for Bush".

We haven't heard from the "rebels" (my invention in this context). Sometimes silence is golden, but I am wondering if this silence means that they concur or object to the decision.

I have a feeling what Richard thinks (perhaps he is looking for a more diplomatic word as we speak), but the rest of you? Is Han right when he wrote "I imagine that most people who posted here can live with this"?

Roland

[jonottawa]

Walddk, on Oct 19 2007, 06:48 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Oct 18 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

<snip>

"By a 6-0 vote with Bill Pollack abstaining because of his possible conflict of interest it was agreed that a letter of regret will be written to the president of the Chinese Contract Bridge Association and to Mr. Jose Damiani, President of the World Bridge Federation regarding the incident at the Closing Ceremonies on Saturday, October 13, 2007 in Shanghai when the US Women’s team received their gold medals and remained on stage during the playing of the US National Anthem while holding a sign “we did not vote for Bush".

We haven't heard from the "rebels" (my invention in this context). Sometimes silence is golden, but I am wondering if this silence means that they concur or object to the decision.

I have a feeling what Richard thinks (perhaps he is looking for a more diplomatic word as we speak), but the rest of you? Is Han right when he wrote "I imagine that most people who posted here can live with this"?

Roland

I'd have to read the letter.

"We regret that the sign wasn't bigger, more professional-looking and translated into more languages."

[Walddk]

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 19 2007, 06:48 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Oct 18 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

<snip>

"By a 6-0 vote with Bill Pollack abstaining because of his possible conflict of interest it was agreed that a letter of regret will be written to the president of the Chinese Contract Bridge Association and to Mr. Jose Damiani, President of the World Bridge Federation regarding the incident at the Closing Ceremonies on Saturday, October 13, 2007 in Shanghai when the US Women’s team received their gold medals and remained on stage during the playing of the US National Anthem while holding a sign “we did not vote for Bush".

We haven't heard from the "rebels" (my invention in this context). Sometimes silence is golden, but I am wondering if this silence means that they concur or object to the decision.

I have a feeling what Richard thinks (perhaps he is looking for a more diplomatic word as we speak), but the rest of you? Is Han right when he wrote "I imagine that most people who posted here can live with this"?

Roland

I'd have to read the letter.

"We regret that the sign wasn't bigger, more professional-looking and translated into more languages."

While disregarding the offensive nature of your last two lines I would like to add that it would be a hard ask since most North Americans don't speak more than one language. Did you expect the Chinese or the French to help the American women translate?

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Oct 19 2007, 09:48 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Oct 18 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

<snip>

"By a 6-0 vote with Bill Pollack abstaining because of his possible conflict of interest it was agreed that a letter of regret will be written to the president of the Chinese Contract Bridge Association and to Mr. Jose Damiani, President of the World Bridge Federation regarding the incident at the Closing Ceremonies on Saturday, October 13, 2007 in Shanghai when the US Women’s team received their gold medals and remained on stage during the playing of the US National Anthem while holding a sign “we did not vote for Bush".

We haven't heard from the "rebels" (my invention in this context). Sometimes silence is golden, but I am wondering if this silence means that they concur or object to the decision.

I have a feeling what Richard thinks (perhaps he is looking for a more diplomatic word as we speak), but the rest of you? Is Han right when he wrote "I imagine that most people who posted here can live with this"?

Roland

Are you sure about that?

I think that the USBF chose a fairly diplomatic course of action. To date, all that the USBF has done is issue a meaningless apology directed at a couple of non-principles.

1. The USBF Board that issued the apology was not complict in the whole signage incident.

2. The message embodied by the sign wasn't directed at either the WBF or the Chinese government. (To the extent that either of these entities cares, I see this as an indication that they take themselves way too seriously)

The entire "remedy" is smoke and mirrors, designed to create the illusion of action while neatly sidestepping all of the real issues.

Given that I still see nothing wrong with the actions of the USA1 Team and simply wish that the whole controversy would blow over as quick as possible "smoke and mirrors" strikes me as a lovely solution.

[Fluffy]

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 03:16 PM, said:

Junior bridge is a different story (because juniors are mostly amateurs and it certainly would be an outrage if financial considerations alone prevented a gifted junior from competing in a junior championship.)

Lol, you surelly don't know what it is to belong to a NBO without much resources (and whose resources are rather spent in stupid meetings, or 'official' travels)

As a junior I represented my country 7 times (6 European Team Championship and 1 world Junior Pairs)

My NBO payed me the entry fee only (later demanded me bridge articles about the event)

My local bridge organization helped me with a part of the airplaine fee sometimes (sometimes I had to give free lessons back to juniors wich I would had gladly done anyway)


About the stance I was helped only in 2 of the 7 championships.

Adding the university championship in Amsterdam where my NBO payed nothing at all (there were no entry fees), I've spent around 4000€ to represent my country.

IMO it was actually cheap, and would pay a lot more to do it, representing your country is priceless.

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Oct 19 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

I would like to add that it would be a hard ask since most North Americans don't speak more than one language.

Nope, no untrue stereotypes that Americans would want to defend themselves against floating around the world at all...

Quote

Is Han right when he wrote "I imagine that most people who posted here can live with this"?

I can in the sense that it was completely expected, seems very mild, and makes no difference to my everyday life anyway. But I certainly don't think they have anything they 'should' have to apologize for.

[ralph23]

hrothgar, on Oct 19 2007, 03:03 PM, said:

To date, all that the USBF has done is issue a meaningless apology directed at a couple of non-principles.

1. The USBF Board that issued the apology was not complict in the whole signage incident.

Did I miss something? They actually ISSUED a statement? I thought all that had happened so far was that the BoD of USBF voted on Monday 15 October to issue a "letter of regret" == and that Jan Martel was assigned to draft the same for the Board's review and later issuance.

BTW, for those not so familiar with the language of diplomacy, a "letter of regret" or "statement of regret" is not an apology. "The United States deeply regrets the disruption that the earthquake has caused for the people of Chile....." -- the US can't "apologize" for the earthquake. It can express regret that it happened.