TimG

My questions were: Where is the non-Bible historical evidence that Jesus was born to a virgin mother or walked the earth after his death? What other ancient-world, super-natural events do we accept as true? I don't think that most atheists are biased against Christianity (any more than other religions), it's just that in our society the theist position is most often taken up by the Christian. I don't think there is any intellectual dishonesty associated with lumping the virgin birth in with stories of Odin or Zeus or any number of other stories that Christians would call myths. It's just that because the theist position is most often taken up by a Christian, Christianity comes under fire more often than other religions. At least in our society, perhaps there are those in Islamic or Hindu societies who are having similar discussion and think their religion is taking the brunt of the criticism. (Yes, I realize this forum has no religious boundaries, but I think the generalization is appropriate.)

This part of the response makes it sound like this was something of an auto-response made without careful reading of the complaint -- "if this isn't the case". If the BBO representative had examined the complaint, there would be no need for the "if". That having been said, it seems to me that there are likely 100s of complaints and only a very small percentage of them are something that truly requires BBO action. They get this auto-response with the invitation to pursue the matter further if the complaint, upon reflection, is one that really needs the attention of BBO under the "free market" approach favored by BBO. I think your friend ought to respond: I understand your position, but feel my complaint requires your attention. Again, this is my complaint: <paste complaint here>. I don't think BBO has disrespected your friend. Your posting, however, might easily be considered disrespecting BBO. Tim

I hope not every advantage.

In order to play this method in ACBL mid-chart events, you would have had to have an approved defense. Despite the fact that the method appeared to be permitted, the C&C Committee could choose not to approve a defense, thus barring the method. There was no approved defense to this method, so the changes have not affected use of this method -- it was not permitted before the changes and remains that way.

Why start there? It's not like slavery was unique to the American republic.

There's item #20... I don't see the changes as significant from a practical point of view -- they've sort of just codified the current reality. The C & C Committee never felt compelled to approve new methods, even if they were clearly allowed by the mid-chart. And, when they did approve methods, they could hide them in events with 12+ board segments.

I did not mean to imply that you owed a response. You have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this topic and a lot of time posting in this thread. And, I was looking forward to reading your response to my post. I felt kind of silly checking this thread so quickly upon my return. I meant the post merely as an admission of that interest, not as a demand upon anyone's time.

I think it is interesting that if given the chance to time travel, most people would pick some time in the past to travel to. Surely there is some future event that would be better avoided. I'd like to travel 50 years into the future, look back on those 50 years and then pick an event in that time frame to change.

tim i'll try again... i didn't criticize richard for referring to my beliefs as myths, i simply stated that his presupposition is that they *are* myths... the same goes for what you, he, i believe about zeus or anyone else... the only criticism occurs when the person making the claim denies these presuppositions I still don't quite understand. It seems to me that Richard has not dismissed the Christian legend out of hand but rather he has some (perhaps considerable) knowledge regarding who wrote the legend, how it was translated and accepted by the Church, and which parts of the story are corroborated by other histories. Based upon this, he has concluded that the story of Jesus is at least part myth. Not unlike the process by which he has concluded that the stories of Zeus and Odin are myth. Is the complaint that Richard (and others) have a predisposition not to believe in the super-natural? Or, that we have a predisposition not to believe specifically in the Christian super-natural? As a child I attended church and Sunday school. I was taught that the stories of Jesus as told in the Bible were true. At some point, my presupposition was that of the Christian perspective. I now consider myself an atheist. I came to atheism despite teaching to the contrary. I do not doubt that you believe in the tenants of Christianity. But, I do not believe there is evidence to support your beliefs; I deny the Christian God. I don't deny your beliefs, I just think you are wrong! I do not claim to be able to prove there is no God, and I am disposed to think that it may be something that is impossible to prove. But, I have not heard any convincing argument for the existence of God, either. I believe the onus of proof is on those who believe in the existence of God rather than on those who do not believe. Just as I would say that the onus of proof is on those who believe there is (or once was) life on Mars, rather than those who do not believe. I would suppose nothingness until provided with evidence to the contrary. You are still avoiding the question regarding the virgin birth. I was gone for nearly 48 hours and thought surely there would be a luke warm response to this when I got back.

Where is the non-Bible historical evidence that Jesus was born to a virgin mother or walked the earth after his death? What other ancient-world, super-natural events do we accept as true?

Because if it wasn't, why would he have done it? I play bridge with Richard. I know he is prone to open some hands 4M that should systemically be opened something else. That is, he deviates from systemic agreement from time to time. I suspect this is not unusual in other partnerships.

tim i'll try again... i didn't criticize richard for referring to my beliefs as myths, i simply stated that his presupposition is that they *are* myths... the same goes for what you, he, i believe about zeus or anyone else... the only criticism occurs when the person making the claim denies these presuppositions I still don't quite understand. It seems to me that Richard has not dismissed the Christian legend out of hand but rather he has some (perhaps considerable) knowledge regarding who wrote the legend, how it was translated and accepted by the Church, and which parts of the story are corroborated by other histories. Based upon this, he has concluded that the story of Jesus is at least part myth. Not unlike the process by which he has concluded that the stories of Zeus and Odin are myth. Is the complaint that Richard (and others) have a predisposition not to believe in the super-natural? Or, that we have a predisposition not to believe specifically in the Christian super-natural? As a child I attended church and Sunday school. I was taught that the stories of Jesus as told in the Bible were true. At some point, my presupposition was that of the Christian perspective. I now consider myself an atheist. I came to atheism despite teaching to the contrary. I do not doubt that you believe in the tenants of Christianity. But, I do not believe there is evidence to support your beliefs; I deny the Christian God. I don't deny your beliefs, I just think you are wrong! I do not claim to be able to prove there is no God, and I am disposed to think that it may be something that is impossible to prove. But, I have not heard any convincing argument for the existence of God, either. I believe the onus of proof is on those who believe in the existence of God rather than on those who do not believe. Just as I would say that the onus of proof is on those who believe there is (or once was) life on Mars, rather than those who do not believe. I would suppose nothingness until provided with evidence to the contrary. You are still avoiding the question regarding the virgin birth.

You've criticized Richard for referring to Christian beliefs as myth, but you did not address the quoted question. It seems to me that you are not applying the same objectivity to Christian legend that you are to other religious (or world view) legends.

Isn't this what you are doing? You have conveniently left out Richard's reference to: These legends (if you object to calling them myths) were all retold by generations and/or written about. What evidence, aside from "the Bible tells me so", do you have that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus? Or, do you believe this is one of those Bible facts that should not be taken literally?

So you had actual success at a national event, and earned some platinum. This seems okay to me. If you had to get 5 platinum for the "Expert Bronze Life Master" as described a few posts ago, would you feel motivated to keep entering national events? I think so. It would provide something to shoot for and be motivated to acquire. No, I did not have "actual success". I have a few section awards in nationally rated open pair events. An average player will happen into those if they play in enough events. If I had to get 5 platinum points for "Expert Bronze Life Master" I would already have fulfilled the requirement. Personally, platinum points and any associated rank change would not add any extra motivation to enter national events. I recognize that I am an atypical ACBL member in this regard. As far as Blue Ribbon Qualifications go, I have more of those than platinum points. I cannot remember all the events in which I earned a Blue Ribbon Q. If Blue Ribbon Qs were significant, the Qs would be memorable to someone like me who has fewer than 2000 masterpoints.

I disagree. Remove the platinum match award from the open swiss, and winning platinum shows actual success at a real level instead of just getting the attendance handouts at regional KO/pair events. You'd have to eliminate platinum point section awards in pair events, too. I've got a few platinum points and have never sniffed at an overall award in a open national event. As they are currently awarded, they can be accumulated through attendance.

Not all unlimited regional wins are created equal -- the size and strength of the field can vary greatly from event to event even at a single regional. I think a meaningful change has to take into account strength of field. (And, not strength of field as measured by current metrics such as masterpoints.) The ACBL addition of a platinum point requirement repeats past errors by adding an attendance requirement to the equation. Just like silver, red and gold points, average players will accumulate modest amounts of platinum points if they play in events that offer platinum points.

Fromthe USBF web site (May 30th at 3:00 PM eastern time): "Scores from Rounds 7-10" is confusing to me because it seems there are 8 rounds in this round robin. The crosstable has some shaded and some unshaded blocks, and says "The shaded matches on this scorecard were played in RR1 and those scores are included in the Carryover" but teams have different numbers of shaded boxes.

No, you could compete in the real thing. :)

I think he meant world record for over tricks, unless that '+6" means making six instead of six over tricks.

Could you vote using each of those names?

You appear to be proof that you're right.

How do you deal with the flashing box that says who won the last trick? I have not noticed flashing ads, but at least the ads I have seen are way down at the bottom of the window away from the playing area.

Norway and Netherlands got about 25% of the vote when this poll appeared in "offline bridge".

MP, n/n, you hold ♠Axx ♥KT98xxx ♦AT9 ♣--, 1♣ on your right. This is probably something of a style question, but I'm curious: 1♥ or 4♥ or something else?