[fred]

jonottawa, on Oct 14 2007, 11:32 PM, said:

It is not a privilege for the best players in the world to compete in the world championships;

I think you are wrong about this (and just about everything else).

It always felt like a privilege and an honor to me. I am guessing that this would be a near universal sentiment among players who have competed in such events.

Since you seem to be young (judging from your appearance to say nothing of your words) and since you seem to take yourself seriously as a bridge player, I am going to offer you some free advice (which could easily be worth what you are paying for it) based on my experience as a serious bridge player:

If you are to have any hope of being successful in this game you are going to need to undergo a serious attitude adjustment. Otherwise you are going to have a hard time finding and keeping strong players who want to be your partner or teammates.

Maybe one day you will be so awesome that people should feel privileged simply to be in your presence, but here in the real world that attitude is just going to piss off the people who can help you. Nobody likes to play on a team with a prima donna.

You don't have to take my word for it, but I have seen this happen time and again. The Jlalls of the bridge world get ahead in no small part because better players take an interest in them, not just because they are good but also because their attitudes are good.

The talented young players who never grow up rarely get to learn first hand that it really is a privilege to play for your country in the World Championships.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

ralph23, on Oct 15 2007, 03:11 AM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

The latter I am sorry to say.

Really ??

Were they shooting birds at the flag etc. too, or sticking their tongues out etc., or other such things???

Sorry to be so ....er.... dubious.... and not to doubt what you say, but what you describe ....It's just (as I'm sure you know) inherently very hard to believe.

No, there were no rifles, birds or tongues to be seen. I can understand that you are shocked nevertheless, but you can trust me. I was not in Shanghai, but it's my job to investigate because I am a journalist by profession.

I have several reliable sources who all confirm what I have written. Don't ask me who they are because a journalist never reveals his sources. Some day, I don't know when, the rest of the world will see that I am right.

Roland

[mrdct]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 06:49 PM, said:

I have watched thousands of sports events where national anthems were played. I have never seen anything like it and I sincerely hope that I won't see it again.

Perhaps you haven't been watching the same sports events I've been watching Roland as unfortunately making political statements on the sporting field and/or victory podium is all too common.

There is obviously the famous Olympic medal ceremony in Mexico City in 1968 where Tommie Smith and John Carlos, the gold and bronze medalists in the men's 200 metre race, took their places on the podium for the medal ceremony barefooted and wearing civil rights buttons, lowered their heads and each defiantly raised a black-gloved fist as the US national anthem was played.

In Australia there has been a long-running controvesy over indigenous athletes, most notably Cathy Freeman in track & field, parading around during victory laps with the Aboriginal Flag which is closely associated with a political agenda championing social injustice and land rights issues.

In the Australian Football League there was some controversy back in 2002 when a prominent player had the words "NO WAR" written on his arm during an official team photo which lead to the AFL forbidding players from making political statements on the field.

At the cricket World Cup in 2003 (which I'm sure Roland was following closely) Andy Flower and Henry Olonga wore black armbands ". . . mourning the death of democracy in ... Zimbabwe". Not surprisingly, neither player ever played international cricket again.

I'm struggling to find some actual examples, but over the last decade or so there was a proliferation of football (soccer) players having slogans written on their singlets that would be revealed during goal celebrations. Most of the slogans were quite benign (such as "get well soon Mum") but others were overt political statements which lead FIFA to banning players from removing their jersey to reveal slogans or advertising.

I wonder how different our attitudes to Debbie Rosenberg's protest may have been if her slogan read "Stop Global Warming", "Save the Whale" or "World Peace".

[Walddk]

mrdct, on Oct 15 2007, 03:36 AM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 06:49 PM, said:

I have watched thousands of sports events where national anthems were played. I have never seen anything like it and I sincerely hope that I won't see it again.

Perhaps you haven't been watching the same sports events I've been watching Roland as unfortunately making political statements on the sporting field and/or victory podium is all too common.

There is obviously the famous Olympic medal ceremony in Mexico City in 1968 where Tommie Smith and John Carlos, the gold and bronze medalists in the men's 200 metre race, took their places on the podium for the medal ceremony barefooted and wearing civil rights buttons, lowered their heads and each defiantly raised a black-gloved fist as the US national anthem was played.

In Australia there has been a long-running controvesy over indigenous athletes, most notably Cathy Freeman in track & field, parading around during victory laps with the Aboriginal Flag which is closely associated with a political agenda championing social injustice and land rights issues.

In the Australian Football League there was some controversy back in 2002 when a prominent player had the words "NO WAR" written on his arm during an official team photo which lead to the AFL forbidding players from making political statements on the field.

At the cricket World Cup in 2003 (which I'm sure Roland was following closely) Andy Flower and Henry Olonga wore black armbands ". . . mourning the death of democracy in ... Zimbabwe". Not surprisingly, neither player ever played international cricket again.

I'm struggling to find some actual examples, but over the last decade or so there was a proliferation of football (soccer) players having slogans written on their singlets that would be revealed during goal celebrations. Most of the slogans were quite benign (such as "get well soon Mum") but others were overt political statements which lead FIFA to banning players from removing their jersey to reveal slogans or advertising.

I wonder how different our attitudes to Debbie Rosenberg's protest may have been if her slogan read "Stop Global Warming", "Save the Whale" or "World Peace".

You haven't given just one example of where an athlete has been laughing through the national anthem. That was what my post was about. Smiles, yes, because they were overly happy, but laugh and ridicule, no. Take a look at the athletes when national anthems are played. It is visibly a very proud moment for them.

It wasn't for the American women in Shanghai.

I am aware of all the other incidents you mention.

Roland

[ralph23]

mrdct, on Oct 14 2007, 09:36 PM, said:

I wonder how different our attitudes to Debbie Rosenberg's protest may have been if her slogan read "Stop Global Warming", "Save the Whale" or "World Peace".

I don't think it's the "slogan" but their mocking of the national anthem that's the critical part. Who cares what they think about Bush, anyhow?

[mrdct]

mrdct, on Oct 14 2007, 08:36 PM, said:

I wonder how different our attitudes to Debbie Rosenberg's protest may have been if her slogan read "Stop Global Warming", "Save the Whale" or "World Peace".

Actually, "Save the Whale" may have been a tad inflamatory given that Norway is one of the few countries in the world that still hunts and kills the creatures.

[ralph23]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 09:36 PM, said:

Don't ask me who they are because a journalist never reveals his sources. Some day, I don't know when, the rest of the world will see that I am right.

Roland

No I understand you can't do that.... I just hope they will find themselves moved to report publicly what they witnessed.

[jdonn]

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

Take a look at the athletes when national anthems are played. It is visibly a very proud moment for them.

It wasn't for the American women in Shanghai.

Much like the sign topic to begin with, why in the world would you even bring it up???

I don't know what your intentions are in bringing up either topic to begin with. But I hope they aren't as bad as they would seem to someone who doesn't know how much of yourself you have dedicated to Bridgebase and to bridge.

[keylime]

I've had a long think about this and I think I should not restrain my comments any further.

Representing one's country is not only one of the highest honors that can be afforded, but carries with it a significant responsibility to not only perform to one's best ability, but to do so in a socially acceptable manner. There have been many solid examples given of the ramifications of a bold (or rash, depending on view) statement of speech.

I have no quarrel about expressing dissent in a public forum, when it is appropriate to . I frankly have concerns about our current President, and I am a staunch conservative as many as you know. However, those are best expressed here in the United States - whether in San Francisco, Sioux Falls, Charlotte, or here in Springfield, VA. Expressing said views in China, while representing a nation, is simply inexcusable to me.

One must understand the gravity of this statement:

1. There are 300 million people in the United States.
2. Out of those 300 million, you are one of the six women who have not only perfected your trade, but then had the chance and executed to win something of significance.
3. Here you are, receiving your laurels and honors that are rightfully and solely yours, and as you are receiving these, you decide to make a statement that twice has been proven as a minority view in free elections, which the country that you state this bold or rash comment does not exercise.
4. Thusly, the organization and the members of such, have been directly implicated as being anti-Bush, without any consent or approval.
5. Furthermore, you have now aligned yourselves to be view not in the original tone that you for years have so fiercely and diligently aspired to -> to become the best women players in the world. Instead, you will be remembered as "rebel rousers", "conscientious objectors", "progressive thinkers", or "unpatriotic nutjobs", depending on view. Is this how you really want this incredible achievement to be remembered?
6. Most importantly, you have focused your post-championship activities into non-bridge areas - is this furthering the game you profess lovingly? Is this bringing respect and honor to yourselves and your country??

Imagine if they had said something about freeing Tibet or stopping the Three Gorges Dam; the firestorm that would have been caused is unmeasurable.

[TimG]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 02:45 PM, said:

The greatest honour for an athlete is to represent one's country.

For some, I'm sure. For others it probably isn't significant at all.

Nationalism varies from person to person.

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2007, 04:01 AM, said:

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

Take a look at the athletes when national anthems are played. It is visibly a very proud moment for them.

It wasn't for the American women in Shanghai.

Much like the sign topic to begin with, why in the world would you even bring it up???

I don't know what your intentions are in bringing up either topic to begin with. But I hope they aren't as bad as they would seem to someone who doesn't know how much of yourself you have dedicated to Bridgebase and to bridge.

Because it's a journalist's job to bring forward topics of general interest to the public. I can't tell how much you know about journalism, but that is how it works all over the world. You are entitled to think that this incident should have been swept under the carpet. I disagree.

You can't pretend that nothing happened when it actually did. My judgement, rightly or wrongly, was that this is of general interest to the public. We had more than 4,000 views in the BBF so far, and that makes me think that my judgement was correct.

I had no bad intentions; I was merely inclined to tell what happened during an award ceremony after the World Championships. Since you have posted several times too, I suppose that you wanted to express your views. That's fine although I don't agree with what you have said to this point.

What my work for Bridgebase has to with this I don't understand. You are kindly requested to make it clearer if you want me to comment.

Roland

[matmat]

keylime, on Oct 14 2007, 09:01 PM, said:

a statement that twice has been proven as a minority view in free elections, which the country that you state this bold or rash comment does not exercise.

is that actually strictly true?

[TimG]

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

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.

I agree with this. Hard to come to another conclusion if you think about it.

[cherdano]

fred, on Oct 14 2007, 07:31 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 14 2007, 11:32 PM, said:

It is not a privilege for the best players in the world to compete in the world championships;

I think you are wrong about this (and just about everything else).

It always felt like a privilege and an honor to me. I am guessing that this would be a near universal sentiment among players who have competed in such events.

Since you seem to be young (judging from your appearance to say nothing of your words) and since you seem to take yourself seriously as a bridge player, I am going to offer you some free advice (which could easily be worth what you are paying for it) based on my experience as a serious bridge player:

If you are to have any hope of being successful in this game you are going to need to undergo a serious attitude adjustment. Otherwise you are going to have a hard time finding and keeping strong players who want to be your partner or teammates.

Maybe one day you will be so awesome that people should feel privileged simply to be in your presence, but here in the real world that attitude is just going to piss off the people who can help you. Nobody likes to play on a team with a prima donna.

You don't have to take my word for it, but I have seen this happen time and again. The Jlalls of the bridge world get ahead in no small part because better players take an interest in them, not just because they are good but also because their attitudes are good.

The talented young players who never grow up rarely get to learn first hand that it really is a privilege to play for your country in the World Championships.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred, you are being unfair to Jon in the heat of the battle here. He didn't say he wouldn't take it as a privilege to play with stronger players, and also he wasn't talking about himself, just what he suspected about world class players.
Anyway, are you really so sure the Rodwells and Versaces take it as such a big privilege to "represent their country" every single time?

[mrdct]

cherdano, on Oct 14 2007, 09:45 PM, said:

Anyway, are you really so sure the Rodwells and Versaces take it as such a big privilege to "represent their country" every single time?

Quite an interesting point that has some parallels with the "club vs country" debate whenever star football players get called up for international duty often to the detriment of their professional club.

The livelihood of professional bridge players depends on their recurrent professional gigs with the well-paying sponsors, so clearly in order to keep their families fed a fair degree of loyalty to their sponsor is required.

I can't remember exactly when it was, but I believe that the situation has arisen with a USA team previously where the npc wanted to bench the playing-sponsor to maximise the chances of USA winning the match, but out of loyalty to their sponsor (without whom they wouldn't have been able to get where they are) one or more of the professional players either feined illness or threatened to fein illness inorder to ensure that the playing-sponsor played. I hope some bridge historian can confirm or correct this for me as I probably read it on rgb or some similar "authoritative" source.

I'm not going to comment on Rodwell or Versace as I've never met either of them and have no idea where their loyalities lie, but I would suggest that just like any other segment of the population, elite bridge players would have varying degrees of patriotism and I'm sure there exist some who take the "representing one's country" thing more seriously than others.

For me, aside from seeing my children born, representing my country at bridge has been the highlight of my life so far.

[jonottawa]

fred, on Oct 15 2007, 01:31 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 14 2007, 11:32 PM, said:

It is not a privilege for the best players in the world to compete in the world championships;

I think you are wrong about this (and just about everything else).

It always felt like a privilege and an honor to me. I am guessing that this would be a near universal sentiment among players who have competed in such events.

Since you seem to be young (judging from your appearance to say nothing of your words) and since you seem to take yourself seriously as a bridge player, I am going to offer you some free advice (which could easily be worth what you are paying for it) based on my experience as a serious bridge player:

If you are to have any hope of being successful in this game you are going to need to undergo a serious attitude adjustment. Otherwise you are going to have a hard time finding and keeping strong players who want to be your partner or teammates.

Maybe one day you will be so awesome that people should feel privileged simply to be in your presence, but here in the real world that attitude is just going to piss off the people who can help you. Nobody likes to play on a team with a prima donna.

You don't have to take my word for it, but I have seen this happen time and again. The Jlalls of the bridge world get ahead in no small part because better players take an interest in them, not just because they are good but also because their attitudes are good.

The talented young players who never grow up rarely get to learn first hand that it really is a privilege to play for your country in the World Championships.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Wow. A little over-the-top (not to mention completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed) don't you think, Fred?

Since you brought it up ...

I will certainly never represent the US in international bridge competition. I'm nowhere near good enough and don't have the tickets to be.

At some point, if I move back North, it's conceivable that I might represent Canada. But that would likely be due mainly to attrition (and also a fair bit of luck) more than anything else.

I never said it wasn't an honor. It is indeed that. Much like being POTUS is an honor and a privilege and the person who holds that office should be rightly held to a certain standard. If not by the Congress, then by the media. If not by the media, then by patriots who love the Constitution and the principles on which our great country was founded. That is what duty, honor, country is all about.

Do I offend people because I am blunt and outspoken? I do. Has it cost me certain opportunities in life? Undoubtedly it has.

Maybe that's why I look so young, though (you're barely 6 years older than me.) D'ya think?

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

Because it's a journalist's job to bring forward topics of general interest to the public. I can't tell how much you know about journalism, but that is how it works all over the world. You are entitled to think that this incident should have been swept under the carpet. I disagree.

You can't pretend that nothing happened when it actually did. My judgement, rightly or wrongly, was that this is of general interest to the public. We had more than 4,000 views in the BBF so far, and that makes me think that my judgement was correct.

I had no bad intentions; I was merely inclined to tell what happened during an award ceremony after the World Championships. Since you have posted several times too, I suppose that you wanted to express your views. That's fine although I don't agree with what you have said to this point.

I believe you that you didn't have bad intentions, but you brought it up at the wrong place (a thread designated to congratulating the Norwegians and others for their bridge achievements), and you exaggerated:

Walddk, on Oct 13 2007, 11:43 AM, said:

When the American ladies received their gold medals on the podium, they displayed a poster with

WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR BUSH

It wasn't "the American ladies", it was just one of them, and it wasn't a poster, but just a small hand-written sign. Your post gave a wrong impression, and I understand enough about journalism that this is something you, as a journalist, should be able to avoid.

So using "it's a journalist job" as a justification for bringing this up sounds a bit odd in my ears.

[Erkson]

blackshoe, on Oct 15 2007, 01:28 AM, said:

If we were wrong to have elected Mr. Bush, that error will be set right in November. 'Nuf said.

So, please, work hard and try to find us something better than another L. Johnson, Carter or Clinton (to mention only the worst).

[jonottawa]

Walddk, on Oct 15 2007, 12:53 AM, said:

ralph23, on Oct 15 2007, 02:45 AM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

Finally, if anyone thinks it's appropriate behaviour to laugh through your national anthem while holding a sign with that text aloft, I have lost what little respect there was left for him or her.

They laughed through the national anthem???? All of them ??

Were they just giddy with excitement and glee, or were they actually making fun of it or ridiculing it?

I find the latter alternative sort of hard to believe. Not really that, was it ?

The latter I am sorry to say. I understand that you don't approve (thanks!), but I assume Jon does since he didn't comment. If I am wrong, perhaps Jon would care to tell us what he thinks.

Roland

Since you asked, Roland ...

It would never occur to me to mock the playing of the Star Spangled Banner.

I have too much respect for the principles upon which this great country was founded and for the men (mostly) who fought and died to defend them.

It would never occur to me to condemn someone who lashes out against the current occupant of the Oval Office.

I have too much respect for the principles upon which this great country was founded and for the men (mostly) who fought and died to defend them.

It would never occur to me to try to have someone barred from playing bridge or raked over the coals because out of an arguably misguided sense of patriotism they behaved in a way that Miss Manners would object to.

I make far too many mistakes and have far too many flaws to obsess about other people's shortcomings.

[Erkson]

ralph23, on Oct 14 2007, 09:17 PM, said:

I do recall when I was a young fellow travelling about in France and working on my French (being in school in Aix for a college semester), meeting some older blue-collar workers in a bar, and eventually I let them know my Dad had landed with the Allies at Normandy and so forth. That about brought the house down and needless to say, I didn't pay for anything that night and several of the men (moi included) cried over the stories. One of them had been in the Resistance and had been tortured.

So when people say "Europeans hate Americans" I recall, "Well, not all of them do."

American soldiers who died in France, died because their Government send them.

Their Government send them to defend USA, not to defend France.
Germany's domination of Europa was a threat to USA.

Germany defeated France on May 1940. USA abandonned isolationism only after Pearl Harbor (i.e. December 1941) and that direct threat upon USA.

Frenchmen owe nothing to USA.