...

>> it was not my suggestion that the Club.....
>> take action. If so, I would have filed a complaint. Instead, I was
>> trying to be helpful to a participant on the BBS's that I thought
>> was a Club member (this is addressed below), as well as any
>> Club member(s) that may have considered trying to be the winning bidder.

... after having opened the conversation with this comment:

>> Norm, to be honest with you, my concern....
>> was as it related to your membership in the CC>CC and the Code
>> of Ethics. However, I have since learned that your membership has
>> lapsed and that the two aspect of the Code of Ethics that may be at
>> jeopardy just don't apply as a threat to your membership.

... ?????

That comment was not an attempt "to be helpful". It represents what it says -- "a threat to your membership". Coming from a club official, it implied that a "complaint" and therefore some action against Norm's "membership" might be forthcoming.

>> I don't know if you are trying to play Devil's Advocate with
>> respect to your comment about roulette and tournament chips ....

Not a chance. If the club were to take some action against Norm (or anyone else), on the basis of the COE provisions you cited, for the sale of one of these Super Bowl chips (which were obtained openly from the casino by paying for them), while at the same time countenancing the theft (yes, that's the word) of roulette chips, that would be the height of hypocrisy. I would find it very offensive.

It was not my intention to start a rehash of the whole roulette thing (and I have previously made it clear that I have no ethical problem with the "harvesting" of roulette chips, though I don't do it myself because (1) I don't play roulette and (2) I'm a coward.)

On the other hand, I see no need to ...

>> ... keep this focused on the infringement issue brought forth by the NFL.

... when there are related club concerns that can appropriately be included in the discussion.

----- jim o\-S