I suggest you examine your statement more carefully, Jeff. There are many cases where an action is prohibited or regulated, but the practice is not opposed by the rule maker.

There are, in my view, 3 states of being. One is to oppose - as evidenced by taking action to prohibit, impede, or disrupt. The other is to advocate - to subsidize or encourage. The third state is neutral - to take no position on the matter at all - not to encourage or discourage, nor prohibit or advocate.

As an example, the feds have chosen not to support with taxpayer dollars research in certain medical areas (like stem cell research) but don't oppose the research if paid for by someone else.

This is an example of the neutral state. It does not subsidize nor does it prohibit.

Fortunately, we have good legal minds helping to formulate the public statement by the Club in this matter and because they realize there are limits to how far the law allows you to go in restraining trade, the statement only indicates they don't encourage members' grading and encapsulating chips. Failure to encourage is not the same as opposition.

The opposition to slabbing position statement goes further than not encouraging members to purchase slabbing services. It amounts to as much prohibition as they felt prudent to enact as policy. Failure to encourage is not the same as opposition, as you suggest. However, enacting prohibitions is opposition.

Regulating how a practice is carried out at Club functions and in Club publications is not the same as opposing the practice of slabbing. If it were, the Club officers' policy statement would have been worded differently.

Let us all be thankful that the leadership of the club does not choose to enforce its policy in the mode of Cheney/Bush - going directly from mild disapproval to unrestricted world war in one leap.