[blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
**********************
" Words are but the signs of ideas;
I wish, however, that the instrument 
might be less apt to decay, and that 
signs might be permanent like the 
things they denote. " 
                      (Samuel Johnson)                   
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>> I find it not difficult at all, especially because this (my) 
>> understanding conforms to everything I have been told 
>. from authoritative sources.
>> 
> 
> And I dare to say all authorative sources are wrong.
> I do not use authority, Sven, I use logic. Comment on 
> my logic, don't  use authority.
> 
+=+ And that is it really. For Herman his 'logic' is superior 
to any interpretation authorized by the Statutes and ByLaws 
of the  Federations, Zones, World Federation, under whose 
auspices the tournaments are organized in which he plays. 
'Nuff said -  no point in arguing with a brick wall.  At the 
same time it is not by the application of  Herman's 'logic' 
that the Directors and appeals committees will determine 
the law in those tournaments. +=+
<
+=+ Did I see somewhere a question whether the following 
extract is in fact taken from the CoP? 
      "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized 
information available to his partner does not commit an 
infraction of law or  propriety; it is the use of that information 
that is a breach of the laws."
             The doubter should read the last two paragraphs of 
the section headed 'Use of unauthorized information'. In the 
obedience to the law on disclosure there is no 'design' of the 
compliant player; the 'design' is that of the legislator. (I say 
this not for Herman's benefit - that will not accrue - but for 
the record.) +=+  
< 
+=+ I read, too, that :
       "The fallacy consists of giving reasons for your thesis 
        without considering reasons against it, or giving reasons 
        against an opposing view without considering reasons 
        for it."
        With respect to the author of that sophistry, I respond 
quite simply that the fallacy lies in the suggestion that reasons, 
opinions, other than those of authority, have any importance. 
We are dealing with a game that has rules and also Directors 
empowered to determine their application in play, authorities 
with power to determine the principles and the interpretations 
of the rules that the Directors and appeals committees, like the 
players, are subject to.
        One can discuss preferences, desirability, but not the 
fact of a law when that fact is laid down by an authority 
empowered to say how it shall be construed.  +=+
<
+=+ Lastly, from time to time in this thread there have been 
mentions of the members of the WBF drafting committee who
read what appears here. There are four of the seven members
who reveal that they do so, to what extent I am unsure. The 
opinions expressed here may sometimes become lodged in 
the mind of at least one of those four - this has something to 
do with a judgement each of us makes as to the realism of 
the author (some contributors are perhaps judged to be 
more 'with the game' than others).   
         If we have a common concern it may be lest some of 
what is written here could lead the inexperienced reader to 
award a semblance of gravitas to assertions and propositions 
that are at variance with the laws and interpretations by which 
the game is currently ordered.
                                 ~ Grattan ~   +=+