Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Aerni
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It jibes perfectly fine. I say this as a lawyer who has served on many 501©(3) boards, including chairing many of them, as well as being knowledgeable about the laws concerning non-profits. The question is, is the mission of the USBF (not its members or constituents) to make a profit? Clearly not, and I suspect the USBF struggles to remain solvent for that very reason. Its mission is to determine what bridge will represent the US in international competition, a worthy charitable mission. So, just as the fact that I am a highly compensated lawyer in my private practice does not make me ineligible to serve on the boards of charitable organizations that provide legal services (such as to the indigent), the facts that pros are board members or constituents of the USBF does not create impediments to 501©(3) status. The bona fide issue you may be raising is one of conflicts of interests, but both pros and amateurs may have their own separate set of interests as members or constituents of the USBF. The key is to have some balance on the board between pros and amateurs (doesn't have to be 50-50) and disclosure of where board members' interests lie.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a great match for us spectators to watch - tight, taut and tense. Thanks for being a part of making it happen
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hanan, some of us feel that getting at truths and ferreting out lies, frauds and deceptions is all of our jobs. It's not the sole province of journalists
Aug. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, we absolutely do not need to explore what motivated Mr Clark to expose the truth. Exposing such truths does us a service, regardless of whether the speaker or writer is motivated by a desire to serve the public or by a dislike of someone.

And, no, Mark Horton's plagiarism isn't one of the great sins of our time. It was sort of pointless, actually, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

We'd all be best served if he would simply admit he was wrong, apologize sincerely and commit to never doing it again. Then, those of us who are so inclined could return to reading and enjoying his bridge writing without the distractions he imposed on his own career.
Aug. 3, 2018
John Aerni edited this comment Aug. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To this reader, it matters whether an author is plagiarizing. It matters whether someone is passing off someone else's thoughts as their own and not attributing them to the original author. To me, it goes to the author's credibility, to their integrity. It goes to the issue of whether I want to devote my time and resources reading the author. Michael Clark has done us a service. We should thank him.
July 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't the way to “return to normalcy” for Mark Horton to apologize for plagiarizing, make amends and promise not to engage in it further? One would think that an association of writers would desire that outcome, as opposed to shielding and protecting those who plagiarize writer's works
July 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem here isn't Michael Clark. Please don't attack the whistle blower when, by all appearances, his facts are correct and we, the readers, needed to know those facts
July 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was a control group: Fisher & Schwartz, when they declared. When they declared, they placed the board in the middle.
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,

It's speculation to say that “BZ were dropped because they were accused.” The WBF did not say why it disinvited BZ. In fact, the WBF said it had discretion to disinvite BZ without giving a reason, and it exercised that discretion. Did the WBF disinvite them merely because there were an accusation against them? Or because it found an accusation credible? We don't know, because the WBF chose to be silent on the issue. That leaves all of us in a situation where we can only speculate (unfortunately).
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If Hanan is referring simply to the tone of the discussion, then he should refrain from using the phrase “lynch mob.” That phrase – like references to Hitler and Nazism – are designed to inflame, be incendiary and manipulate unfairly. The phrase is best avoided if the speaker wants to change the tone of a conversation.
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hanan,

Sorry, but Brian is right and you are wrong. A lynch mob exercises power by murdering its victim. The exercise of that power is unlawful. It is also conspiratorial. In the US, the murder is race-based. It is a form of terrorism.

Here on BW, none of us have any powers, except one: we exercise our right to state our opinions. It is lawful for each of to offer those opinions. Brian can do it, you can do it, Lotan Fisher can do it. We all have equal access to offer our opinions. That's not a lynch mob under any stretch of the imagination or any fair use of the phrase.
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron,

A little perspective, please. Someone who cheats should be ashamed. Someone who chose the word “shout” for Kit's thread hardly needs to be ashamed, even though the word choice could have been better (I gather he or she didn't want to or could not use the word “speak” again).
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oleg,

I don't think Kit could have been any clearer. He stated that he did not give the thread its title. He then specifically warned that no inferences should be drawn as to his conclusions from the thread's title. My initial post erred by inferring that he named the thread. His article in fact reflects that he is fastidious in electing not to draw grand conclusions, but instead lets the reader draw his or her own conclusions.
Nov. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I stand corrected as well.
Nov. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Josef,

I understand that both you and Michal Rosa translated Cezary's concluding section as criticizing Kit's “conclusions,” but, as Kit pointed out, he drew no conclusions (unless one draws an inference from Kit's use of the word “shout” in the title of the thread that he has drawn a conclusion). If anything is crystal clear from Kit's work, it's that he lets the reader draw his or her own conclusions. Cezary's missing this essential point undercuts his statement.
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reese-Schapiro played in the days before screens and gave their finger signals during the bidding. IIRC, they did not play negative doubles and thus were most at risk for missing a heart fit when opponents interfered with their bidding.
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From what I've seen of the WBL, I wouldn't be surprised if that is its standard. I don't think that changes my point that it shouldn't be its standard. The WBF just borrowed it from criminal procedure, but why? It makes sense when imprisonment or the death penalty is at stake, but not when the issue is whether someone should be denied entry to card game tournaments. I ask you, does the WBF make ill-considered judgments?
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please note that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not the standard that the EBL uses and should not be the standard that any organization uses. It's used in criminal proceedings where the penalties are sufficiently draconian (imprisonment or even death in certain US jurisdictions) that such a rigorous standard is considered justified.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lior,

Non-expert judges do not use the expertise of witnesses as proxy for the correctness of their analysis. Rather, they take both into consideration. Even non-experts have tools for determining what part of expert's testimony is BS.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An extraneous use of the signal is not a false positive. As you noted, there are instances where the signal is used or may be used when there is no purpose or reason for conveying that information. That's not a false positive because the recipient of the information (Z) won't be confused or misled. A false positive would be when B gave the signal when it would be useful to Z and when he would be looking for it, but the signal didn't correspond to the code. That would result in Z being misled or confused. That cuts against the hypothesis. The extraneous use of the signal doesn't, however.
Oct. 15, 2015
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top