[Deanrover]

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

[geller]

Here's another thread from the satire site Jon Swift. At the end of the thread they have an update

Quote

Update: I receive an email from Alan Falk, attorney for the United States Bridge Federation: "This blogs sounds like it was written by a Ted Kaczynski or some other complete nut job. Alan Falk. Attorney at Law."

It's hard to believe that an attorney representing the USBF would really say this.....

[hrothgar]

On the bright side, it seems like only yesterday that the ACBL was hiring PR flunkies to try to promote the game...

What's the old saying "There's no such thing as bad publicity?"

[Walddk]

Deanrover, on Nov 14 2007, 11:40 PM, said:

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

I think so. The Lanzarotti-Buratti cheating scandal in Tenerife 2005 had 277 replies and 21,063 views. So far this thread has 482 replies and 21,183 views.

Roland

[jonottawa]

geller, on Nov 14 2007, 10:08 PM, said:

Here's another thread from the satire site Jon Swift.  At the end of the thread they have an update

Quote

Update: I receive an email from Alan Falk, attorney for the United States Bridge Federation: "This blogs sounds like it was written by a Ted Kaczynski or some other complete nut job. Alan Falk. Attorney at Law."

It's hard to believe that an attorney representing the USBF would really say this.....

This time I'm dubious of the source. Is it not Allan Falk?

Besides, the USBF would never hire an attorney who sounds quite so unhinged.

Surely it's a hoax.

EDIT: The author of that blog has since updated the spelling from Alan to Allan.

2nd EDIT: I've received what is purported to be the original email from the author of the blog and it certainly doesn't appear to be a hoax.

[luke warm]

is this true or not (not rhetorical, i really don't know)?

"The Olympic Charter provides “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.”"

if so, can the displaying of the sign be considered a "kind of demonstration" or "political ... propaganda?" again, if so then it appears that someone did something wrong... to me it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with agreeing ahead of time to abide by whatever rules are in place...

assuming someone did not adhere to the spirit and/or letter of the "law" the question becomes 'what should be done?' ... if anything, i'd say an apology is in order; not for what the sign said but for displaying it in the first place

[geller]

Quote

This time I'm dubious of the source. Is it not Allan Falk?

Besides, the USBF would never hire an attorey who sounds quite so unhinged.

Surely it's a hoax.

If anyone from the USBF is reading this, please get Mr. Falk to denounce this as a hoax in the event he didn't send the email in question.

[jonottawa]

geller, on Nov 14 2007, 09:31 PM, said:

There are now threads on the VC controversy at Wonkette and FireDogLake, two sites that don't normally cover bridge. Some of the nuances appear to have been lost.....

A few nuances lost, but I thought it was funny that someone pointed out that the ladies were just exercising their rights to free speech and bare arms.

And to some extent it WAS a free speech issue, just not a first amendment issue.

Now it's a 'If the body in charge of disciplining you for trivial misconduct starts misbehaving in a way that makes your trivial misconduct pale in comparison, where do you go from there?' issue.

I think you declare a mistrial, dismiss the charges, and move on.

[mrdct]

This little gem popped up in one of the blogs:

[nickf]

the story has hit mainstream Australian press now, albeit a story picked up from an international wire.

From news.com.au

nickf
sydney

[jonottawa]

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?"

[jonswift]

jonottawa, on Nov 14 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

2nd EDIT: I've received what is purported to be the original email from the author of the blog and it certainly doesn't appear to be a hoax.

As some doubts were cast on the authenticity of the email I received from Mr. Falk. whose contents I posted on my blog, I asked jonottawa, as a disinterested third party, to take a look at it and give his opinion. I hope my good faith effort will allay some of the doubts about its authenticity, although, of course, neither of us can be 100 percent certain that it is genuine. As I do not want to compromise Mr. Falk's privacy (although I am under no obligation to protect it) I hope this effort on my part will suffice.

[glen]

jonswift, on Nov 14 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

...asked jonottawa, as a disinterested third party...

disinterested?

Edit:

Dictionary.com said:

Disinterested and uninterested share a confused and confusing history. Disinterested was originally used to mean “not interested, indifferent”; uninterested in its earliest use meant “impartial.” By various developmental twists, disinterested is now used in both senses. Uninterested is used mainly in the sense “not interested, indifferent.” It is occasionally used to mean “not having a personal or property interest.”
Many object to the use of disinterested to mean “not interested, indifferent.” They insist that disinterested can mean only “impartial”: A disinterested observer is the best judge of behavior. However, both senses are well established in all varieties of English, and the sense intended is almost always clear from the context.

[jonottawa]

officeglen, on Nov 15 2007, 02:14 AM, said:

jonswift, on Nov 14 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

...asked jonottawa, as a disinterested third party...

disinterested?

On the issue of the validity of this particular email, I am absolutely disinterested.

If I thought it was a fake email I would say so. As I did when I first heard of it (because few people misspell their own name.)

If someone went to the trouble of creating a fake email including a 'fake' legal disclaimer with phone numbers and an email address at the bottom and copied another board member on the email just for kicks, then more power to them.

I am reasonably confident the email is legitimate.

[jonswift]

officeglen, on Nov 14 2007, 09:14 PM, said:

jonswift, on Nov 14 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

...asked jonottawa, as a disinterested third party...

disinterested?

Disinterested in terms of me, since he does not know me and I do not know him and he was suspicious of the email in the first place. I'm not really familiar with the internal politics of the Bridge world, but I must say I'm glad I wasn't around for the Lanzarotti-Buratti cheating scandal in Tenerife 2005.

[mike777]

Just to remind people of what the free speech amendment says:

The text of the amendment is:

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[jonottawa]

I've been informed that tomorrow night's Olbermann will be a very good show.

I've also been informed that every member of the team has offered to apologize (presumably conditional on a slap on the wrist) but have been turned down because some board members 'want blood.'

Edit: A very minor clarification: The four "nonapologists" offered several versions of an apology and they were told by 2 USBF board members that they would not be good enough because some on the "board want blood."

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.

[bid_em_up]

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.

[jonottawa]

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.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on Nov 14 2007, 12:15 PM, said:

From the USBF web site, with respect to the winners of the Venice Cup:

Quote

They instead have chosen to go on the offensive by extremely aggressive defensive actions

One wonders what these unspecified "extremely aggressive" actions are.

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