[jonottawa]

I've come up with a way to resolve this.

It's time for the rednecks to secede from the ACBL.

Those of us who support American values like decency, tolerance, freedom of expression, dissent, compassion, and forgiveness can stick around.

Don't worry, though, the Neo-Contract Bridge League will still be allowed to send its best teams to the Trials every year. We'll even let you wear your hoods.

[jonottawa]

TimG, on Nov 15 2007, 04:17 AM, said:

One wold also wonder about an "offensive by extremely defensive actions". Is that even possible?

You spoke to Eddie? He's the only Wold I know.

But seriously, that statement reminds me of the infamous Clayton Williams (Texas gubernatorial candidate) statement:

"Well, bad weather is like rape: if it's inevitable, you might as well relax and enjoy it."

The ladies rightly perceived that a lynch mob was at the gate. They weren't about to relax and enjoy it.

[bid_em_up]

jonottawa, on Nov 14 2007, 11:06 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Nov 15 2007, 03:34 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 14 2007, 09:38 PM, said:

If this is true, I hope others will join me in asking for the resignation of the USBF BoD.  Their behavior has been unconscionable.  Let's resolve this issue before San Francisco.

Unless you are a dues paying member of the USBF, I doubt they give a damn what you demand and quite possibly, they don't care, even if you are one.

Don't put words in my mouth, Bid, that's a bad habit of yours. Nobody demanded anything.

Virtually their entire budget comes from an organization I've been a member of for 20 years. They've brought discredit to themselves and to the game. It's time for them to go. I will make my feelings on that point clear regardless of who gives a damn about it.

They portray half the team as non-apologists when noone on the team has ruled out an apology and all but one has signed off on various apologies, conditional on a reasonable resolution to the matter.

They allow themselves to be swayed by one angry old man who thinks a 4-year suspension is the appropriate punishment and another one who thinks the ladies have committed treason.

You want to support them, be my guest. But don't distort my position, thanks.

Hmmmm, when somebody says "I hope others will join me in asking for the resignation of the board members", it usually means they, themselves, are demanding that the Board resign, and in your case, asking others to do the same. You stated those words exactly. Please don't be so naive as to insist otherwise.

So I fail to see how I "put" words in your mouth, but it is evidently a bad habit of yours as well.

You missed the point entirely and instead attempt to put words in my mouth as well as making an accusation that I never said or implied.

I never said that I supported the BoD's action in its current degree of severity, although you obviously jumped to the conclusion that I do, which btw, I do not. I do think some action is warranted but not to this degree.

I said (read slowly please, obviously you have a comprehension problem when you read too fast), unless you are a dues paying member of the USBF, I doubt the board is really going to give a damn if you (or I or anybody else) ask for their resignation or not.

The fact that the USBF gets money from the ACBL has no bearing on giving you the "right" to ask for the resignation of the BoD. The only way you have that "right" is if you are a member of the USBF. So far, you have not indicated that you are.

Now, you could certainly demand of the ACBL that they stop sponsoring the USBF, or providing money to the USBF and probably with more success. You could also cease playing in ACBL sponsored games which provide funds to the USBF. You could ask other members of the ACBL to join you in your protest by doing the same. You might could even convince me to do the same.

But you are simply barking up the wrong tree by trying to ask, demand, or insist directly to the USBF that the BoD resigns. I'm just telling you like it is.

Now if you want to say you think the BoD should resign, be my guest. Send them a letter even. But I am not foolish enough to think that my opinion, or yours or anybody elses will have any bearing on their doing so, unless I am a dues paying member of the USBF.

Please don't distort my position, thanks.

[jonottawa]

Olbermann rerun is on now on MSNBC (at least in Austin (central time.)) It's story#2 (the 2nd last story.)

[mrdct]

Fox News have picked it up now. Video link:

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.htm...s&212.278&&&exp

It includes an interview with USBF lawyer, Allan Falk.

[Codo]

I really don´t understand this at all.

TheVCM made a mistake, anybody agreed on this.

But what is done of this "accident" is a desaster, which is not a fault of the ViCteam but of the DUMB.

I really hope that these guys know what they are doing and hope that bad publicity is better then no publicity. But I doubt that.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Nov 14 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

One would also wonder about an "offensive by extremely defensive actions". Is that even possible?

Heh. As a career military officer, I would have to say "no".

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Nov 15 2007, 10:51 AM, said:

TimG, on Nov 14 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

One would also wonder about an "offensive by extremely defensive actions".  Is that even possible?

Heh. As a career military officer, I would have to say "no".

One might want to look at a lot of the debate regarding the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

A number of people argued that projects the the Strategic Defense Initiative should be banned because they are inherently destabilizing. SDI would offers no meaningful protection against a first strike but might be sufficient to mitigate a retaliatory strike. This dynamic would encourage first use.

I'm not interested in debate SDI. I am simply noting that many people would advance this as a classic example of "offensive by extremely defensive actions".

[fred]

Deanrover, on Nov 14 2007, 09:40 PM, said:

Is this the most replied to thread in the history of BBF??

I am wondering if a single person has changed his or her mind as a result of reading this thread (or as a result of anything else). Anyone out there who originally thought the action is question was OK but don't anymore or vice versa?

I have read several of the many (non-bridge) blogs that have discussed this incident during the past day or two. I found it interesting, but not surprising, how polarized the opinions out there are.

In general I rarely read non-bridge-related blogs, but as far as I can tell many political bloggers either identify themselves as members of the vast right-wing conspiracy or as members of the liberal-dominated media (at least that is what they like to call each other). The left-wing bloggers and the people who comment on their sites all seem to think the action in question should be praised. The right-wing bloogers and the people who comment on their sites all seem to think the action is question was reprehensible.

No doubt the left-wingers would explain this as a result of their deeply cherished belief in freedom of speech which they think the right-wingers lack. No doubt the right-wingers would explain this as a result of their deep love of their country which they think the left-wingers lack.

I think it is more likely that they are all a bunch of brainwashed robots who can't get past the message of the sign itself. These people made up their minds as soon as they read the words on the sign. They are so blinded by their hatred of the "other side" that they cannot look at this (or any other) issue objectively.

What a mess! Nice that we, as bridge players, have a ready-made escape from all the loons on both sides where (in theory at least) people are able to put aside their politics and just enjoy a great card game

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

Disagree, Fred. Bridge is as polarized as politics. The only redeeming factor of bridge is that the post-mortem usually vindicates one opinion over the other. But then next hand may change everything.

[hrothgar]

jonottawa, on Nov 15 2007, 07:06 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Nov 15 2007, 03:34 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 14 2007, 09:38 PM, said:

If this is true, I hope others will join me in asking for the resignation of the USBF BoD.  Their behavior has been unconscionable.  Let's resolve this issue before San Francisco.

Unless you are a dues paying member of the USBF, I doubt they give a damn what you demand and quite possibly, they don't care, even if you are one.

Don't put words in my mouth, Bid, that's a bad habit of yours. Nobody demanded anything.

Virtually their entire budget comes from an organization I've been a member of for 20 years. They've brought discredit to themselves and to the game. It's time for them to go. I will make my feelings on that point clear regardless of who gives a damn about it.

They portray half the team as non-apologists when noone on the team has ruled out an apology and all but one has signed off on various apologies, conditional on a reasonable resolution to the matter.

They allow themselves to be swayed by one angry old man who thinks a 4-year suspension is the appropriate punishment and another one who thinks the ladies have committed treason.

You want to support them, be my guest. But don't distort my position, thanks.

Edit for the kids on the short bus who can't tell when someone is writing conversationally.

If you want to support them, be my guest. But don't distort my position, thanks.

No offense Jon, but you are making precisely the same mistake that the USBF did. You’re deliberately escalating the situation instead of letting things blow over.

There was a very simple solution to the whole "Shanghai Incident". The USBF could have decided not to dignify the matter with any kind of a response.

Don't escalate matters
Don't do anything to draw attention to the event
Let things blow over as quickly and quietly as possible

If some member of the ACBL BoD decided that they wanted to try to make hay with this "incident", the USBF could have responded that

1. This was a completely insignificant event.
2. No one's interests would be served escalating this into a political shitstorm

From my perspective, it was completely predictable that trying to push through any kind of meaningful sanctions would cause this to blow up. Any number of posters on various forums commented that they would respond with law suits if they were in the same shoes. Does anyone really believe that Jill Levin would respond otherwise? Moreover, the charged political nature of this affair pretty much guarantees that if the incident did escalate, it would do so in a very public fashion as different sides search for surrogates and supporters.. Flash forward a few weeks and look where we are today: Fox News, Olberman, and half a dozen political blogs are commenting on what’s going on. A lot of random folks who couldn’t care less about bridge seem to genuinely enjoying themselves at “our” expense.

Simply put, I don’t think that the USBF handled this very well. At the same time, I don’t think that it’s productive to start demanding the mass resignation of the USBF BoD or trying to back them into the corner. This will simply cause things to escalate further.

What’s necessary now is finding some way to defuse the situation. Unfortunately, it’s not readily apparent how to do so. I suspect that it is going to be difficult for either the USBF BoD or the Venice Cup team to back down.

[helene_t]

fred, on Nov 15 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

I am wondering if a single person has changed his or her mind as a result of reading this thread (or as a result of anything else). Anyone out there who originally thought the action is question was OK but don't anymore or vice versa?

I have read several of the many (non-bridge) blogs that have discussed this incident during the past day or two. I found it interesting, but not surprising, how polarized the opinions out there are.

I, for one, have changed my opinion a little. Initially I thought "If they want to turn their own celebration into a bad taste party I guess it's their choice".

The sentiments of Hedy (especially) moved me more towards "If they want a bad taste party, go have it somewhere else".

Also, I didn't imagine that this would be such a big issue. In that respect you (Fred) were right in emphasizing the need to prevent recurrences, not only for the sake of future award ceremonies but for the sake of bridge more generally. OTOH I think the USBF BoD deserves 99% of the blame for the damage caused by the incident, the rest to be shared between the team and various posters here and elsewhere.

But on the other hand, my sympathy for the team has grown because of the reactions against them from USBF and from some posters in this thread. My initial reaction was that in the hypothetic event that I were to hire pros (thanks Richard for this phrasing), I would be less likely to opt for members of that team. I'm now more on line with Richard. Yes, they displayed bad taste, but no, they do not deserve all this hostility. (I have "Congrats to the US Venice Cup team" on my profile, I hope it doesn't count as political profile-abuse).

As for polarization, I don't think it's that bad. I suppose American politics is very polarized and that every minute quasi-political issue automatically makes people resort to bold rhetorics. But if you look at the concrete sentiments about how this situation should be dealt with, I think most of us are close to your (Fred's) position.

[mike777]

jonottawa, on Nov 14 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

We just made the #2 story on Olbermann. He ripped Jan a new one.

He brought up her 'not a free speech issue' quote.

Paraphrasing:

'There's the rub. You are the United States Bridge Federation. If you don't represent the values of the United States, get a new name.'

Edit: Here's a direct quote (from the rerun) of the end of that piece.

"Martel tells the New York Times "This isn't a free speech issue. There isn't any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them."

Ah, slippery slope there. A private organization assuming for itself the right to represent this country and use the name "United States" without adhering to the rights of the citizens of this country.

On whose authority, it might well be asked, does the "United States Bridge Federation" exist?"

Olbermann must be the most often fired person in the history of tv/radio for no other reason than his "free speech"

His mouth gets him fired on a regular basis.

I find it cute that he acts shocked that a private organization in the USA places some limits on speech.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Nov 15 2007, 09:25 AM, said:

Moreover, the charged political nature of this affair pretty much guarantees that if the incident did escalate, it would do so in a very public fashion as different sides search for surrogates and supporters.. Flash forward a few weeks and look where we are today: Fox News, Olberman, and half a dozen political blogs are commenting on what’s going on. A lot of random folks who couldn’t care less about bridge seem to genuinely enjoying themselves at “our” expense.

Simply put, I don’t think that the USBF handled this very well. At the same time, I don’t think that it’s productive to start demanding the mass resignation of the USBF BoD or trying to back them into the corner. This will simply cause things to escalate further.

I think your tense is wrong in this, Richard. We have a pre-preliminary hearing from the USBF. That's a long ways from being "handled".

Logically, the USBF should accept the apologies and the people in question will not be invited to the 2008 USWBC games which is not, technically, a punishment. After all, they haven't invited me, and I don't think I'm being punished.

http://usbf.org/docs...bc2005final.pdf

This makes it clear to me that you can be made not eligible for any reason they want, including conduct and hygiene. I don't think a "they didn't invite me to their party" lawsuit will have any hope. What the USBF does have to worry about is libel, so I think calling it a punishment is a mistake. But it's not too late to fix that.

[jonottawa]

hrothgar, on Nov 15 2007, 02:25 PM, said:

No offense Jon, but you are making precisely the same mistake that the USBF did.  You’re deliberately escalating the situation instead of letting things blow over.

There was a very simple solution to the whole "Shanghai Incident".  The USBF could have decided not to dignify the matter with any kind of a response.

Don't escalate matters
Don't do anything to draw attention to the event
Let things blow over as quickly and quietly as possible

If some member of the ACBL BoD decided that they wanted to try to make hay with this "incident", the USBF could have responded that

1. This was a completely insignificant event. 
2.  No one's interests would be served escalating this into a political shitstorm

From my perspective, it was completely predictable that trying to push through any kind of meaningful sanctions would cause this to blow up.  Any number of posters on various forums commented that they would respond with law suits if they were in the same shoes.  Does anyone really believe that Jill Levin would respond otherwise?  Moreover, the charged political nature of this affair pretty much guarantees that if the incident did escalate, it would do so in a very public fashion as different sides search for surrogates and supporters..  Flash forward a few weeks and look where we are today:  Fox News, Olberman, and half a dozen political blogs are commenting on what’s going on.  A lot of random folks who couldn’t care less about bridge seem to genuinely enjoying themselves at “our” expense.

Simply put, I don’t think that the USBF handled this very well.  At the same time, I don’t think that it’s productive to start demanding the mass resignation of the USBF BoD or trying to back them into the corner.  This will simply cause things to escalate further.

What’s necessary now is finding some way to defuse the situation.  Unfortunately, it’s not readily apparent how to do so.  I suspect that it is going to be difficult for either the USBF BoD or the Venice Cup team to back down.

The day you start deliberately mischaracterizing my arguments or using other fallacious reasoning is the day you'll offend me, not before. I'm not expecting to see that day particularly soon, hrothgar.

I'm holding the USBF Board to their own standards. I think many of their standards are ludicrous, asinine, nutty, etc. But people shouldn't object to being held to their own standards. My 8 point statement certainly had elements of satire (obviously I wouldn't use the acronyms DUMB and VCTMs if it were 100% serious) but the points made were every bit as valid, if not more, than the points made in the document I was parodying.

Almost everything you said about the situation is exactly right.

1. They handled it as poorly as possible (I'm embellishing a little, but I don't think we're too far off on this point.)

2. By handling it the way they did, it was very easy to predict that all of the negative repercussions that have come to pass would come to pass.

3. Everyone would love it if there was a way to defuse the situation but none is readily apparent.

Used to be in this country when people make a mess, they get fired. If the BoD continues on their current path, they sure as hell better get fired. It's up to them to swallow their pride, recognize that their behavior has been far worse than the behavior of the ladies, and end this thing peacefully and soon.

They remind me of A-Rod kissing that $21 million good-bye. Seemed arrogant and insane beyond belief to me at the time, but I figured Scott Boras had a master plan. Nope. It was just arrogant and insane beyond belief.

Time to come crawling back to the Yankees, USBF BoD. You're going to have to settle for a little less than you reckoned on in the bargain. Better make it quick, though, you're no Alex Rodriguez. You're replaceable.

[BillHiggin]

helene_t, on Nov 15 2007, 11:33 AM, said:

[OTOH I think the USBF BoD deserves 99% of the blame for the damage caused by the incident, the rest to be shared between the team and various posters here and elsewhere.

I could be mistaken, but I believe that the USBF actions have been somewhat forced by absurd pressure from virtually a single ACBL board member who is playing the funding trump card.

IMHO, the USBF seems to have worked hard to defuse the situation but has had its hand forced. I certainly might be wrong.

Politics often implies governmental issues, but it is also a big factor in organizations.

[mike777]

It takes more than one vote to stop funding.
In any event the membership can always overturn anything the acbl board does. It may take time and work but ultimately as always the members of the ACBL who pay the bills take full responsibility for the actions or nonactions of any board.

As for politics..of course politics should rule any organization.....what is option two?
Politics is nothing more than the art of compromise and decision making.

[Walddk]

Another "Assign the blame" topic. How much do you give the VCT and how much is the USBF responsible for?

I am reluctant to attach percentages, but it's a fact that the VCT created the incident, and in my view the USBF could and should have tackled the issue within two weeks and more elegantly than is the case now.

It has escalated beyond reason. After all, the ladies did not cheat and they did not mug anyone. They are not incurable villains, but it seems to me that they are treated like criminals.

Roland

[mike777]

Walddk, on Nov 15 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

Another "Assign the blame" topic. How much do you give the VCT and how much is the USBF responsible for?

I am reluctant to attach percentages, but it's a fact that the VCT created the incident, and in my view the USBF could and should have tackled the issue within two weeks and more elegantly than is the case now.

It has escalated beyond reason. After all, the ladies did not cheat and they did not mug anyone. They are not incurable villains, but it seems to me that they are treated like criminals.

Roland

Roland the vast majority of villians not named "OJ".....do not get air time on Fox or NYT or MSNBC At the very least they are not being treated as 99.99% of the criminals.

In fact all of this may very well maximize the women's NPV of their future earnings.

BTW with the Nationals starting in SF next week I would think somehow someone could say or do something to get in the news. Is San Francisco known for anything controversial that we can start a fight over?

[pclayton]

mike777, on Nov 15 2007, 08:40 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 14 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

We just made the #2 story on Olbermann.  He ripped Jan a new one.

He brought up her 'not a free speech issue' quote.

Paraphrasing:

'There's the rub.  You are the United States Bridge Federation.  If you don't represent the values of the United States, get a new name.'

Edit:  Here's a direct quote (from the rerun) of the end of that piece.

"Martel tells the New York Times "This isn't a free speech issue.  There isn't any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them."

Ah, slippery slope there.  A private organization assuming for itself the right to represent this country and use the name "United States" without adhering to the rights of the citizens of this country.

On whose authority, it might well be asked, does the "United States Bridge Federation" exist?"

Olbermann must be the most often fired person in the history of tv/radio for no other reason than his "free speech"

His mouth gets him fired on a regular basis.

I find it cute that he acts shocked that a private organization in the USA places some limits on speech.

I remember when Olbermann was a sportscaster in Los Angeles 20 years ago.

Not exactly qualified to be a talking head IMO.