[blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
> Matthias Berghaus wrote:
>   
>> Herman De Wael schrieb:
>>     
>>> Peter Eidt wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Peter2:
>>>> If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning,
>>>> I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Speaking of misguidance: If I have people like Grattan, Ton and others, 
>>     
>
> So far, only two people have spoken out for this ridiculous argument.
>   

Well, there is Kojak, too. That makes it 3 members of WBFLC. As far as I 
can make out that makes it 100% for WBFLC members who post to BLML. 
Apart from a number of EBL TDs, all of whom (speaking of only those 
whose opinion I know, and except you, of course) support what you call 
the MS. Plus some other members of BLM, who may not hold some fancy 
title, but are nevertheless people who give the problem much thought. 
Does that tell you anything, Herman? From what you have posted again and 
again I think it does not.....

>   
>> members of the WBFLC and the DSC, who know from personal experience and 
>> through personal involvement in the drafting process how the laws are 
>> meant to be read (having, if not invented them, (that is too far in the 
>> past) formed them into their present state to no small extent) and I 
>> have Herman, someone not connected with the aforementioned bodies, who 
>> has a different opinion on that, whose interpretation am I going to 
>> follow? Hmm, that`s a really tough one. If I want an interpretation of 
>> some text, whom do I ask? The guy who wrote it or some literary critic? 
>> Another tough one. If I could talk to Shakespeare and to Chaucer about 
>> some difficult point in Hamlet, whom would I ask? Maybe you can guess.
>> Now it so happens that Grattan, Ton and those other people in the WBFLC 
>> have told me by way of the CoP that there is no design involved in 
>> answering questions (one of your former hobby-horses), and that I do not 
>> "indicate" (as in "actively seek to point out") anything  through 
>> answering questions, by way of posting in this list. Not that I didn`t 
>> know that, I can read English, and I consult a good dictionary whenever 
>> I am in doubt. Along comes Herman, who tells the people mentioned that 
>> they have no command of English (which would be funny with regard to the 
>> native speakers if it weren'tso tragic), do not know what "with design" 
>> or "indicate" truly means, and generally are completely misguided. Wow. 
>> That's a tough act to follow.
>>
>>     
>
> Surely you do not wish to join the shortlist of 2 people so far who 
> think that
>
> "indicate in any manner that a mistake ahs been made"
>
> does not apply to the exchange:
>
> "How many aces?" "Diamond preference"
>
> I do not wish to enter into discussion on that point. It is simply too 
> ridiculous.
> I would like to hear from a great majority of people who agree with me 
> on this small issue.
>   

Hm. Actually I can not remember anyone supporting that notion. The fault 
may be with my memory, or with my attention to some postings, but great 
majority? What majority?

>
> But Matthias, we are talking about two totally different things here.
> So far, most people have agreed with me that the MS are breaking 
> L20F5.

I do not think so. I think that everybody agrees that the MS answer to 
opps question will (in certain situations) lead to UI to partner. I do 
not think that anyone has tried to deny that. But the MS holds that this 
does not break 20F5, as I do not indicate anything, rather it is my 
opponents who draw conclusions, which they have every right to do.

>  They believe this is acceptable because of some higher 
> necessity. 

No, they believe that there is no violation of 20F5, so no higher 
necessity is needed.

> I have respect for that vision and my point has always been 
> that both schools are acceptable.
>
> But now, Grattan and Peter have gone a step further. They believe that 
> acting like the majority school does not even break L20F5. 

So they believe, but they did not have to go any step further. There was 
no development in this respect. The laws have been that way, and they 
still are. It is only you who thinks something has changed.

> Simply 
> reading L20F5 should convince anyone of the error in their ways, but 
> no-one wants to utter the words "Herman is right", so you join in.
>   

Simply reading the dictionary explanation of "to indicate" should 
convince you of the error of your ways, but since for Herman it means 
what Herman thiks it should mean, we are at a bit of an impasse here, 
aren`t we? As long as you continue to believe that English must be read 
your way we are not going to get anywhere. It was the same with "without 
design" a couple of months ago, which had a certain meaning for you, so 
it had to be that way. Perish the thought that a native speaker or a 
dictionary could know better what a word or phrase means than Herman does.

> I am quite certain that most of you will find this interpretation of 
> Grattan's very strange, but no. This is the Great Grattan, so he must 
> be right. 

Where does being right really come into this? If it comes to the 
question how a game should best be played anyone may join in. But as 
long as the question is what the rules actually are the makers of those 
rules have the last word. If I were to invent a game, or be member of a 
body that defines the rules, I am in a position to speak about how the 
game is played. That does not make me "right". The top people ofthe FIFA 
are violently opposed to video decisions. Does that make them right? In 
my eyes they are fools to do so, but even if I told them the game woud 
be played as it is now until that body changes the rules. Right or wrong 
does not come into it. It just is. Every available (to BLML) member of 
WBFLC has told anyone willing to read what they wrote how that situation 
is to be handled. Now we may concur or we may disagree, but that does 
not change what the rules actually are. I even say that you have a 
point. I disagree with the remedy for the problem, but that does not 
mean that there isn`t a problem. Personally I believe that dWs brings 
more new problem than it cures, but you knew that. You disagree, which 
is your privilege. But even if I completely agreed with you I still 
would play the game according to the rules as explained to me by the 
responsible body.

> And in the meantime you drag in all the other luminaries, 
> who apparently are in agreement with Grattan. Apart from Peter, I have 
> not heard anyone yet. 

That is the problem, Herman, you don`t listen. Lots of people are in 
agreement with Grattan, and have said so repeatedly. But for you, they 
do not count.

> Not even you have given support to this 
> reasoning, other than by saying that Grattan must be right, since he 
> wrote the laws in the first place.
>   

Oh,Herman. I gave lots of reasons and arguments, but apparently they are 
completely lost on you. But even if had not: what does it matter? This 
is not an OpenSource enterprise, it is an organization with a 
hierarchical structure. So the top level of this structure defines the 
rules. Yes, Grattan and his colleagues wrote the rules. So they tell us 
how to apply them if there is any doubt. You cannot run something like 
the WBF (or any comparable body) with majority decisions amongst players 
and polls and so on. The majority decisions are only taken in 
committees, such as WBFLC, to name only one. Do you think that you or I 
really run our countries? The most we can do is contribute to the 
process of deciding the composition of the bodies that actually govern 
our countries, and a mighty small contribution it is, though an 
indispensable one. We can appeal to certain courts or committees, or 
hang some banners from our windows, but short of actually joining the 
political world that is all we can do. So Grattan is not "right", as I 
mentioned repeatedly. But he communicates to us (and we should be rather 
grateful that someone does) what the body he is part of decided about 
the rules.

> I repeat: it is too silly for words.
>   

And I repeat: I wholeheartedly agree, which is why this is my last 
posting in this thread.

> Please read L20F5 and the example again, and state categorically that 
> you believe there is no "indicating in any manner that a mistake has 
> been made".
>   

*I categorically state that there is no "indicating in any manner that a 
mistake has been made".*

> I urge others to reply in like way. This is a totally wrong argument, 
> and it should be quenched before people start believing it for truth, 
> simply because it was Grattan who said it.
>   

They didn`t do so the last times you asked them to. That may be because 
the number of those agreeing with you is far removed from the "great 
majority" you believe them to be. Of course, it could be because they 
are too lazy to write or because of some other reason, but I doubt it.