Cofa Tsui wrote:
 > If you consider [International Mahjong] as a name that concerns only
 > one person, why are you bothered?

If you had called your house rules "Cofa's Mahjong" I wouldn't be 
bothered. But, the name you chose implies it concerns or belongs to all 
or at least two or more nations.

 > Would TILE also cover mahjong cards?

Don't even try to start a debate about nothing. When an author talks 
about tiles, he means tiles. When he talks about cards, he is talking 
about cards. When he writes about cards and tiles, he is talking about 
cards and tiles. It's that simple. We don't have to reinvent the English 
language.

> Could you show me more details how you compare and justify this challenge
> ("When the official rules of international tournaments held in the vast
> majority of English speaking countries will be those of IMJ, or when 980000
> (1% of 98 millions) IMJ sets are sold") with your original quote ("the
> mahjong equivalent of the International Olympic Committee and you are
> acclaimed as the "Pierre de Coubertin" of mahjong")? Could you also point
> out the real natures of these two quotes?

The original quote is obviously a metaphor. The second quote is the 
standards you asked for.

Should we understand that you shy away from the challenge? Have you 
suddenly lost faith in IMJ?