[jdonn]

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

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

In my observation that only happens when they speak negatively about the organization somehow (often about the refereeing). If it happened due to a political view that would be outrageous. These ladies didn't hold up a sign that said DOWN WITH THE WBF or THE DIRECTORS ARE TERRIBLE.

A better analogy would be something like the Academy Awards. Actors who win make political points and support causes during the acceptance speeches for their awards all the time. I don't know whether the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has behavior guidelines of any kind, but it wouldn't matter because those occurrences are considered normal. No one believes they bring disrepute upon anyone, even though these are broadcast on TV all over the world! If there is a relevant difference, I don't see it.

[Codo]

jdonn this is not really true.

They banned soccer players in Italiy for using the "Hitler Gruss".
They had agoalkeeper banned for racial discrimination during a soccer game in Germany.

They had comercials during political statements at the Academic Awards and they at least discussed or already make it no longer a life broadcast. They have a small delay so that they can stop unwanted speeches.

But anyway, there is obviously no agreement, there are people out there who think it is nice to wear T-Shirts with "jdonn smells" or "I hate my president" and others who agree, that a price giving ceremony is no place for a debatable political statement.

[fred]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 05:46 PM, said:

A better analogy would be something like the Academy Awards. Actors who win make political points and support causes during the acceptance speeches for their awards all the time. I don't know whether the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has behavior guidelines of any kind, but it wouldn't matter because those occurrences are considered normal. No one believes they bring disrepute upon anyone, even though these are broadcast on TV all over the world! If there is a relevant difference, I don't see it.

I can think of 2 relevant differences:

1) Academy Awards are not given out to people who are acting in the capacity of "representing their countries". People who agree to represent their countries have an obligation to abide by the rules and/or codes of conduct that their counties set for their international representatives.

2) No doubt the Academy's rules for "proper behavior on the podium" are different from those of the WBF.

It doesn't matter if a person thinks the rules are stupid or what observers consider to be "normal". What matters is following the rules that you agreed to (either implicitly or explicitly) when you accepted the invitation to participate.

I do not know what the WBF or Academy rules are or even if they really exist. But if they do exist they should be respected.

You would not like it if the WBF Executive Committee was invited to your house for dinner and decided to use some place other than your toilet to relieve themselves. Furthermore, you would not feel the need to post a sign on your front door that said "House rule: Use toilet". You should not do the same thing to them when you are a guest in their house and I believe they have a right to assume that their guests will have some common sense, regardless of which rules are explicitly posted on their front door.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

Codo, on Oct 14 2007, 08:13 PM, said:

They had comercials during political statements at the Academic Awards and they at least discussed or already make it no longer a life broadcast. They have a small delay so that they can stop unwanted speeches.

Of cause this is not to censor free speech, but to stop public nudity as displayed at the super bowl clothing malfunction.

The question is should such efforts of censorship be welcomed?

[jdonn]

Codo, on Oct 14 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

there are people out there who think it is nice to wear T-Shirts with "jdonn smells"

I would probably buy about 10 of those shirts.

[hotShot]

fred, on Oct 14 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

1) Academy Awards are not given out to people who are acting in the capacity of "representing their countries". People who agree to represent their countries have an obligation to abide by the rules and/or codes of conduct that their counties set for their international representatives.

People who represent their counties should, represent what their county stands for.
If the come from a land that stands for freedom, freedom of speech and a demand for equality, they should represent that, without insulting their hosts.

[Walddk]

uday, on Oct 14 2007, 05:31 AM, said:

I don't have a public opinion on the actual incidents referenced here but the debates are better than the ones on TV

Here I have to agree. Where can we claim our salaries?

[helene_t]

hotShot, on Oct 14 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

People who represent their counties should, represent what their county stands for.

That's somewhat subjective Some would say that the Dutch team should then be smoking obnoxious substances (as Ron usually puts it) on the podium.

I'd rather say that people who have agreed to represent some organization should do so in whatever way they have (be it implicitly) agreed to represent the organization.

[fred]

hotShot, on Oct 14 2007, 06:32 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 14 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

1) Academy Awards are not given out to people who are acting in the capacity of "representing their countries". People who agree to represent their countries have an obligation to abide by the rules and/or codes of conduct that their counties set for their international representatives.

People who represent their counties should, represent what their county stands for.
If the come from a land that stands for freedom, freedom of speech and a demand for equality, they should represent that, without insulting their hosts.

You are saying that it is not only proper to break rules that you have agreed to follow, but that one *should* do this?

It is considerate of you to draw a line where it comes to insulting your hosts - that will save some embarassment if a player who thinks his country represents terrorism decides to express his patriotism on the podium.

But what if your hosts say "we will be insulted by any form of public political expression at our tournaments"?

What if, even if your hosts haven't explicitly said it, you are smart enough to know that this is how they actually feel? Is it OK to insult your hosts now?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

The greatest honour for an athlete is to represent one's country. I know what I am talking about, and I am sure Fred, Josh, Justin, MikeH, Wayne B, Hedy and perhaps other regular BBF posters can confirm.

The USA1 team members were selected by the USBF to represent .... yes, USA1! Whether you agree/like it or not, the USA1 team will be regarded as representatives of the United States of America. Consequently, every team member is obliged to behave as their country and federation expect them to. With dignity at all times.

You may or may not agree with all the rules, but once you have accepted to play for your country, you have agreed to adhere to the rules. In my view, the American women did not when they were standing on the podium.

"I will treat other players, coaches, fans, volunteers and officials with respect" must be the minimum one can ask for. If that is beyond your capability, there is only one thing to say:

Behave or be gone.

Roland

[DenisO]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 08:45 PM, said:

The greatest honour for an athlete is to represent one's country. I know what I am talking about, and I am sure Fred, Josh, Justin, MikeH, Wayne B, Hedy and perhaps other regular BBF posters can confirm.

The USA1 team members were selected by the USBF to represent  .... yes, USA1! Whether you agree/like it or not, the USA1 team will be regarded as representatives of the United States of America. Consequently, every team member is obliged to behave as their country and federation expect them to. With dignity at all times.

You may or may not agree with all the rules, but once you have accepted to play for your country, you have agreed to adhere to the rules. In my view, the Americans women did not when they were standing on the podium.

"I will treat other players, coaches, fans, volunteers and officials with respect" must be the minimum one can ask for. If that is beyond your capability, there is only one thing to say:

Behave or be gone.

Roland

My sentiments exactly - the USA1 ladies have let themselves down badly with an ill conceived puerile, self-opinionated and pathetic display. It will change nothing in the political sense but hopefully Bridge authorities will ensure we do not see it's like again.

Denis

[Halo]

Obvious (IMO of course) not to let the last post finish the thread.

It is to the credit of most posters not to mention the freedom to support Hitler, the ultimate 'my country right or wrong...' position.

Sense of perspective called for? There is not much in the world, in the larger scheme of things, less important than Bridge.

[Walddk]

Halo, on Oct 14 2007, 10:07 PM, said:

Sense of perspective called for? There is not much in the world, in the larger scheme of things, less important than Bridge.

Really? Bridge is my living, so it's pretty important for me. The same applies to Fred and many others here. And try to ask the women who were involved in the incident in Shanghai. I think bridge means a whole lot to them too!

Roland

[Halo]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 03:13 PM, said:

Halo, on Oct 14 2007, 10:07 PM, said:

Sense of perspective called for?  There is not much in the world, in the larger scheme of things, less important than Bridge.

Really? Bridge is my living, so it's pretty important for me. The same applies to Fred and many others here. And try to ask the women who were involved in the incident in Shanghai. I think bridge means a whole lot to them too!

Roland

Well, certainly wouldn't like to take the bread out of another man's mouth.

[kenrexford]

Right now, there are seven people reading the various posts about a stupid sign, and there are nine pages of posts. Almost all of it is about this stupid sign.

When the USBF Championships were going on, I, an American, was impressed with the fierce competition and skill level of American players. I was excited to watch USA compete in three World Championships. I have been a tad distracted by the extreme immigration to USA I and USA II teams from outside of USA, but I suppose that's what the USA is -- a melting pot.

Anyway, I was up until wee hours watching the matches. I was rooting for Norway and South Africa in many respects, as the historical underdog and as a Cinderella team, respectively, but I wanted "our guys" to do well. I was happy with the overall results, and a silver in the BB was very compensated by the deserving break-out success of Norway.

Now, nine pages of nickering back and forth about some stupid sign.

I think that the nine pages of bickering back and forth is unquestionable proof that these ladies made asses of themselves. I'm sure that it is quite disappointing to cheer for someone, only to have that person use their success to throw in your face that they disagree with you on some issue having nothing to do with bridge. I'm sure that it is quite disappointing to have someone with whom you agree embarass you by losing grace and dignity. I know that it is quite disappointing to click onto a post on the BBF about how well Norway did, and how proud Harald and others must be, to read about stupid signs.

It's like showing up at a birthday party in your honor, hearing one song for you, and then having everyone break into groups to discuss things at their place of work, things that you know nothing about, as you sit in the corner.

Count me for a "Shame on You" award.

[PrecisionL]

It is beyond sad.

I would not hire any of the Venice Team Champions to play on my team (if I had enough money that is). I doubt any worldly person needs to be reminded that actions of governments do not necessary reflect their person wishes. I am reminded of this daily as I read the newspaper and listen to talk radio. Anyway, I thought they were there for bridge, let them go back at their own expense and give interviews. Anyway, congrats for their bridge victory, commendation for their poor judgment.

Congrats to Norway for their excellent play! I will reread the Viking Club again.

It was sad to see Germany and Sabine do so poorly. :<((

Larry

[hotShot]

helene_t, on Oct 14 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

hotShot, on Oct 14 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

People who represent their counties should, represent what their county stands for.

That's somewhat subjective Some would say that the Dutch team should then be smoking obnoxious substances (as Ron usually puts it) on the podium.

I'd rather say that people who have agreed to represent some organization should do so in whatever way they have (be it implicitly) agreed to represent the organization.

I did not know that that's in the Dutch constitution.

I thought the Netherlands stand for a long tradition of tolerance .....

[Fluffy]

this is a typical situation where talking about it is just helping them on their goal, I think totally ignoring it would had been better, but what do I know.

[glen]

Fluffy, on Oct 14 2007, 05:01 PM, said:

this is a typical situation where talking about it is just helping them on their goal, I think totally ignoring it would had been better, but what do I know.

If they had a goal, what would it be?

[cherdano]

fred, on Oct 13 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 13 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

I don't follow - they chose this wording exactly in order not to make it a political statement, but to make it a personal statement. In my opinion, "Stop Bush" or something similar would clearly have been even more appropriate than the message they displayed.

You could be right, but that would be pretty deep thinking.

I personally think it is more likely that the specific words were selected through lack of deep thinking.

Oops above should say '"Stop Bush" would be even more inappropriate.', of course.

Why would that be deep thinking? Me being European, I frequently meet US Americans who feel the need to make an apology for their current government, even though they should know better that I (as someone who has been living in the US) wouldn't associate with their government and blame them personally for X and Y and Z. And others tell me that they frequently feel the need to do so when they travel through Europe, since they get confronted with all sorts of bad feelings towards them as US citizens that should instead just be directed at the US government.

For me it seemed obvious that the sign was really just that, an apology saying "please distinguish between us and our government, please don't dislike us just because you dislike our government", and not a political statement. I am really surprised that so many seemed to think otherwise. (The political statement would be a waste of paper anyway, as in a completely international audience some 95% are against Bush anyway.) [And whether Aaron likes it or not, this feeling is representative for some part of the US society.]

Back to the important matters: besides the congratulations to Norway, USA1 and USA1 we should also congratulate Harald for winning Gerben's world championship prediction thread! Well done, I hope you celebrated your win together with those other guys' win whom you met at the airport this night...

Arend