[BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?

Herman De Wael Hermandw at skynet.be
Sat Jan 2 10:37:03 CET 2010

No Grattan, in one sense you are wrong:

Grattan wrote:
> Grattan Endicott<grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
>> You may exchange the two colours, but it is the WBFLC
>> who have said that black is white (or the reverse).
> +=+ The WBFLC has merely reiterated its long-standing
> interpretation of the law, 

How can this be a long-standing interpretation?
Have you any prior reference?
Have I not been saying this for many years - did you not hear and read 
my comments? Has anything been said by the WBFLC prior to Beijing?
No, I don't think so.
So the WBFLC has not reiterated any long-standing interpretation. The 
WBF has written down what you Grattan, have long thought to be the 
solution to the DWS problem. I doubt if they took more than 5 minutes to 
agree with what you presented them with (not that that in itself is a 
problem, the majority of texts you provide are quite correct).
Please correct me if I am wrong, and please tell me that the Committee 
at Beijing took out any time to consider the pros and cons of this 
interpretation; if anyone spoke out against it; if anyone realized that 
it was a direct contradiction with the words of L20F5b.
I doubt that very much.

You are doing the world at large a great disservice, Grattan, by 
presenting your own views as those of th WBFLC, and by presenting the 
views of the WBFLC in this matter as a "reiteration" of previously held 
views, when they are clearly none of the sort.

> rejecting the interpretation put
> upon it by Herman.  The latter persists in his self-conceit
> that he is better qualified to interpret the law than those
> who are appointed to do so. 

I do not believe that. In fact, I believe that if you allow me to 
conduct a serious discussion on the matter, with people who are not 
stuck in their ways and refuse to hear to arguments, that I can make 
those people see that they may have acted too quickly in writing the 
Beijing interpretation.
I have presented, in a recent post, a few questions on this 
interpretation. How does the WBFLC propose to instruct the directors if 
they come accross a player who haas acted contrary to that 
interpretation. Do they propose that those directors rule any 
differently than what they would have done prior to the issueing of this 
interpretation? If not, then the interpretation is dead letter, and I, 
as player, can continue to act as I did previously. If they have, then 
I'd like to see, as director, such an instruction.
This interpretation is badly thought out. It needs to be put back on the 
agenda. But of course, such is only my wish.

> The Beijing minute provides
> a point of reference for any who are confused by Herman's
> pretensions.

It does. It shows that my pretensions are not those of the WBFLC. That 
may not mean a great deal.

>                                   ~ Grattan ~   +=+ 


More information about the Blml mailing list