[qwery_hi]

JoAnneM, on Dec 30 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

The whole thing just reminded me of "gossip", which is usually found is movie star magazines. I suppose I was just a little disappointed.

I agree. However, until Fred or the moderators decide to ban gossip, these posts are valid.

I think the best way to kill gossip is to ignore it.

[MFA]

LOL, what is all this discussion police?
People can discuss what they want.
It is only a natural thing that top world class players attract some attention to their doings. Professionals of other sports can't avoid this either.

[jkljkl]

matmat, on Dec 30 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

as for bringing up China again, what the hell was the point?

Hello,

just curiosity. At the time some concerns were expressed about the financial consequences for the involved players. I am happy to hear that nothing of that sort happend.

I had no idea that I stepped in a "Don't mention the war!" episode,

ciao stefan

[JoAnneM]

Well, since no one objects to gossip I would like to know who was caught "cheating" in the bathroom in San Francisco - that resulted in the electronics ban we have now. But I suppose that is carrying the gossip thing too far.

By the way, several studies have stated that men gossip more than women - around the water cooler.

No harm intended, just having fun with y'all.

[qwery_hi]

JoAnneM, on Dec 30 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Well, since no one objects to gossip I would like to know who was caught "cheating" in the bathroom in San Francisco - that resulted in the electronics ban we have now. But I suppose that is carrying the gossip thing too far.

I think yes, since that would be tantamount to accusation of "cheating", or at the very least an attack on their integrity ; both explicitly prohibited by the rules of the site.

IMO gossip which abides by the above two rules is ok

[TimG]

Who is getting what professional engagement seems more like news than gossip. Same as finding out who Hamman and Berkowitz's new partners would be.

[JoAnneM]

Even when the word anonymous is used?

[qwery_hi]

TimG, on Dec 30 2008, 09:59 PM, said:

Who is getting what professional engagement seems more like news than gossip. Same as finding out who Hamman and Berkowitz's new partners would be.

It is somewhat more difficult to make this argument about the anonymous sponsor, for whom this could be a personal instead of a professional engagemant.

[TimG]

JoAnneM, on Dec 30 2008, 10:45 PM, said:

Even when the word anonymous is used?

Gossip would be speculating about who the anonymous sponsor is.

[brianshark]

Who would sponser a bridge team anonymously? I'm just wondering what they get out of it. They don't get to play on the team, and they don't have their name associated with a top team, and they don't get anything advertised on their behalf. I'm just curious what the motivation behind anonymous sponsorship tends to be.

[foo]

TimG, on Dec 30 2008, 09:59 PM, said:

Who is getting what professional engagement seems more like news than gossip.  Same as finding out who Hamman and Berkowitz's new partners would be.

Gossip: "Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. It forms one of the oldest and most common means of sharing facts and views, but also has a reputation for the introduction of errors and other variations into the information thus transmitted. The term also carries implications that the news so transmitted (usually) has a personal or trivial nature."

Folks, if you do not have a valid reason to know something that does not concern you, it is by definition gossip. =ESPECIALLY= if said "news" is not substantiated enough to hold up in a court.

Whether is rumors about who is sleeping with whom, rumors about who is paying for what players, rumors about who players are forming new partnerships with, or rumors about who is rumored to have been naughty in any other way, it is all gossip.

Some gossip is relatively benign. Some, like comments that might hurt a marriage or a person's financial or professional future, can be very destructive.

So,
=If people want to be anonymous about something they have the perfect right to, stay the h&ll out of it.


=It's not anyone else's business who is sleeping with whom unless it involves a breech of the public trust (such as lying to the media while serving as a legislator) or criminal activity (such as lying under oath or if the actual events of the gossip are criminal.)
Note that gossiping about criminal activity is a particularly bad idea.


=Cheating is the most serious crime that exists within bridge. I've heard the analogy that systemic cheating is for bridge what Murder One is in the outside world. Gossip and rumors on this topic are =particularly= destructive to both individuals and the game overall.
Unless there is an official statement made about a cheating case, please do not speculate or gossip monger in public. Such activity might hurt the innocent, or allow the guilty to cover all or part of their tracks.
At the least such stuff makes the jobs of officials working on the topic more difficult.


One a side note, if you have access to officially confidential or privileged information regarding an alleged cheating incident, you have =NO= business indiscriminently broadcasting it. You should not even be hinting at it.

IMHO, such inappropriate use of officially confidential or privileged information about an alleged cheating case is in itself grounds to get you a C&E hearing.

We're talking about people's lives and livelihood here. And you are making the job of those doing legitimate things regarding any such case much more difficult.


Now can we all stop with the gossip mongering and get back to actual bridge?

Anyone got some good =bridge= stories from the Boston 2008 Reisinger?

[qwery_hi]

foo, on Dec 31 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 30 2008, 09:59 PM, said:

Who is getting what professional engagement seems more like news than gossip.  Same as finding out who Hamman and Berkowitz's new partners would be.

Gossip: "Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. It forms one of the oldest and most common means of sharing facts and views, but also has a reputation for the introduction of errors and other variations into the information thus transmitted. The term also carries implications that the news so transmitted (usually) has a personal or trivial nature."

Folks, if you do not have a valid reason to know something that does not concern you, it is by definition gossip. =ESPECIALLY= if said "news" is not substantiated enough to hold up in a court.

Whether is rumors about who is sleeping with whom, rumors about who is paying for what players, rumors about who players are forming new partnerships with, or rumors about who is rumored to have been naughty in any other way, it is all gossip.

Some gossip is relatively benign. Some, like comments that might hurt a marriage or a person's financial or professional future, can be very destructive.

So,
=If people want to be anonymous about something they have the perfect right to, stay the h&ll out of it.


=It's not anyone else's business who is sleeping with whom unless it involves a breech of the public trust (such as lying to the media while serving as a legislator) or criminal activity (such as lying under oath or if the actual events of the gossip are criminal.)
Note that gossiping about criminal activity is a particularly bad idea.


=Cheating is the most serious crime that exists within bridge. I've heard the analogy that systemic cheating is for bridge what Murder One is in the outside world. Gossip and rumors on this topic are =particularly= destructive to both individuals and the game overall.
Unless there is an official statement made about a cheating case, please do not speculate or gossip monger in public. Such activity might hurt the innocent, or allow the guilty to cover all or part of their tracks.
At the least such stuff makes the jobs of officials working on the topic more difficult.


One a side note, if you have access to officially confidential or privileged information regarding an alleged cheating incident, you have =NO= business indiscriminently broadcasting it. You should not even be hinting at it.

IMHO, such inappropriate use of officially confidential or privileged information about an alleged cheating case is in itself grounds to get you a C&E hearing.

We're talking about people's lives and livelihood here. And you are making the job of those doing legitimate things regarding any such case much more difficult.


Now can we all stop with the gossip mongering and get back to actual bridge?

Anyone got some good =bridge= stories from the Boston 2008 Reisinger?

I was intrigued by your spelling of h&ll. Either swearing is allowed in these forums, in which case it was unnecessary, or swearing is disallowed, in which case you were swearing and being dishonest about it. Perhaps it isn't swearing - then you could just use "hell". But some readers of these forums could consider it swearing - well, you aren't fooling them by using h&ll.

I don't care if you call the speculation about the identity of the anonymous sponsor "news" or "gossip" - those who care to speculate (in both the "real" and "virtual" worlds) are perfectly within their rights.

[jdonn]

brianshark, on Dec 31 2008, 04:28 AM, said:

Who would sponser a bridge team anonymously? I'm just wondering what they get out of it. They don't get to play on the team, and they don't have their name associated with a top team, and they don't get anything advertised on their behalf. I'm just curious what the motivation behind anonymous sponsorship tends to be.

One possible explanation, that has been speculated in this case, is that a team of (at least mostly) women doing well in open events would be a good thing for bridge.

[TimG]

foo, on Dec 31 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 30 2008, 09:59 PM, said:

Who is getting what professional engagement seems more like news than gossip.  Same as finding out who Hamman and Berkowitz's new partners would be.

Gossip: "Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. It forms one of the oldest and most common means of sharing facts and views, but also has a reputation for the introduction of errors and other variations into the information thus transmitted. The term also carries implications that the news so transmitted (usually) has a personal or trivial nature."

I don't know how the talk of cheating and affairs of the bedroom type relates to my statement that professional engagement seems more like news than gossip.

Your definition of gossip includes "the introduction of errors and other variations" which to a great degree separates gossip from news. Not all news turns out to be true, but it isn't idle speculation.

Anyway, I see no problem with saying that the Rosenberg team is anonymously sponsored. That seems to be a fact. I will not enter into speculation about who the sponsor might be or what their motivation might be.

Hamman is playing with Zia; Berkowitz is reportedly going to play with Sontag. As far as I know, the latter has yet to pass, but it doesn't seem to be mere speculation.

You are the one who rehashed the incident at the world championships complete with your opinion added in and has now brought cheating into the discussion (apparently out of the blue).

Quote

One a side note, if you have access to officially confidential or privileged information regarding an alleged cheating incident, you have =NO= business indiscriminately broadcasting it. You should not even be hinting at it.

Thanks for letting us all know what it means to have confidential or privileged information. Broadcasting the information would break the confidence and that would be bad, right? I'm glad you cleared that up.

[foo]

Tim,

so far this thread has

a= implied in a public forum that one member of a well known couple in the bridge world is committing adultery. That I had to bring up an incident you wish I had not to clear that up is unfortunate; but less potentially damaging that leaving any possibility that someone would take such an innuendo seriously.

b= had at least one post publicly digging for information as to the possible identity of the accused in an alleged cheating incident. Reread the thread. I did not address this concern "out of the blue."

FTR, banning electronic devices from the playing areas of high level events was inevitable whether or not there was a specific precipitating incident. Unless or until we have jammer technology in the playing areas, it is simply too easy to cheat using such devices; and it gets easier every day as the devices get smaller and more capable.

c= had people publicly speculating as to the identity of someone who explicitly decided to remain anonymous while doing something well within their rights and that most would consider a boon to high level bridge.



Clearly, there is evidence of a lack of understanding about the perils of gossip. Or at the least evidence of a need to more seriously consider greater restraint when tempted to gossip.

[qwery_hi]

foo, on Dec 31 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

Tim,

so far this thread has

a= implied in a public forum that one member of a well known couple in the bridge world is committing adultery.  That I had to bring up an incident you wish I had not to clear that up is unfortunate; but less potentially damaging that leaving any possibility that someone would take such an innuendo seriously.

b= had at least one post publicly digging for information as to the possible identity of the accused in an alleged cheating incident.  Reread the thread.  I did not address this concern "out of the blue."

FTR, banning electronic devices from the playing areas of high level events was inevitable whether or not there was a specific precipitating incident.  Unless or until we have jammer technology in the playing areas, it is simply too easy to cheat using such devices; and it gets easier every day as the devices get smaller and more capable.

c= had people publicly speculating as to the identity of someone who explicitly decided to remain anonymous while doing something well within their rights and that most would consider a boon to high level bridge.



Clearly, there is evidence of a lack of understanding about the perils of gossip.  Or at the least evidence of a need to more seriously consider greater restraint when tempted to gossip.

Whoa!

I took you advice and reread the thread.

The only person who has interpreted the "affair" as adultery is you.

The only person who contends that the poster was publicly digging for information as to the possible identity of the accused in an alleged cheating incident is you.

Seems to me you have built a strawman and are attacking him with vigor.

[qwery_hi]

qwery_hi, on Dec 31 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 31 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

Tim,

so far this thread has

a= implied in a public forum that one member of a well known couple in the bridge world is committing adultery.  That I had to bring up an incident you wish I had not to clear that up is unfortunate; but less potentially damaging that leaving any possibility that someone would take such an innuendo seriously.

b= had at least one post publicly digging for information as to the possible identity of the accused in an alleged cheating incident.  Reread the thread.  I did not address this concern "out of the blue."

FTR, banning electronic devices from the playing areas of high level events was inevitable whether or not there was a specific precipitating incident.  Unless or until we have jammer technology in the playing areas, it is simply too easy to cheat using such devices; and it gets easier every day as the devices get smaller and more capable.

c= had people publicly speculating as to the identity of someone who explicitly decided to remain anonymous while doing something well within their rights and that most would consider a boon to high level bridge.



Clearly, there is evidence of a lack of understanding about the perils of gossip.  Or at the least evidence of a need to more seriously consider greater restraint when tempted to gossip.

Whoa!

I took you advice and reread the thread.

The only person who has interpreted the "affair" as adultery is you.

The only person who contends that the poster was publicly digging for information as to the possible identity of the accused in an alleged cheating incident is you.

Seems to me you have built a strawman and are attacking him with vigor.

P.S. If you take issue with jokes of the kind posted by ASkolnick, say so explicitly. Don't extrapolate to the OP's intentions in using the word affair.

[TimG]

foo, on Dec 31 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

so far this thread has

a= implied in a public forum that one member of a well known couple in the bridge world is committing adultery.

Only in your mind.

Quote

That I had to bring up an incident

You "had" to do no such thing.

Quote

b= had at least one post publicly digging for information as to the possible identity of the accused in an alleged cheating incident.

Again, only serious in your mind. JoAnne was using that as an example of "gossip" that people wouldn't approve of.

Quote

c= had people publicly speculating as to the identity of someone who explicitly decided to remain anonymous while doing something well within their rights and that most would consider a boon to high level bridge.

I've gone back through the thread, though admittedly I did not read every word, and can find no such speculation.

[JoAnneM]

"b= had at least one post publicly digging for information as to the possible identity of the accused in an alleged cheating incident. "

Publicly digging for information? Don't be ridiculous, I would be the last person to do that.

[dburn]

TimG, on Dec 31 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

Hamman is playing with Zia; Berkowitz is reportedly going to play with Sontag.  As far as I know, the latter has yet to pass

I'm sure I saw Sontag pass once. Mind you, it was probably intended as forcing.