Kaitlyn S

Quite honestly, I don't think I've been all that supportive of JonOttowa and I wouldn't be surprised if he feels the same way. Even though he has been quite supportive of me, I have disagreed with him at least twice. The main difference is that Jon is more convinced that I was right than I was. An in any conversation, I am stating what I think, but many life experiences have told me that my thoughts have been based on incomplete or incorrect information and I am willing to have my mind changed when someone can convince me that I am either wrong or that I need to look more deeply into the situation. The message I am getting from Jon is that I should not let the rest of you talk me out of what I believe. I am of the opinion that it is okay to let me be talked out of what I believe if what I believe isn't right. However, I should not let myself get talked out of my current beliefs due to peer pressure or because most of the others in the forum believe something different. However, those who look down on Jon for being extremely confident in his beliefs should look at yourselves as well. I've been here for about 40 pages now and as far as I can tell, the only person who could be convinced to change their opinion about something is me. Now I don't really think that's true, most of us are somewhat open-minded, but I have no evidence to show that it is not true. I've seen many things said that disagree with others, and to date the only one I've noticed bend toward another person's opinion is me. Your biggest problem with Jon is that his beliefs are different than yours. If he was on a different forum, perhaps half of the people would agree with him. Lord knows that America has very many people that agree with Jon on just about every point. Trump did win the election, after all. On the boardgamegeek equivalent of the Water Cooler, it's probably about 1/3 conservatives, and Jon's points would be quite popular among the conservative posters there. Of course, the other 2/3 would be ripping him apart similar to what you do here. However, his points aren't even discussed. As soon as he posts, you all jump on him as an uninformed racist. Has anybody really responded to him with anything besides "you aren't worth listening to"? I felt that way myself for a bit but I realized that people have been much kinder in responding to me than to him, actually discussing the points which I bring up. I can understand your reluctance to discuss things with Jon, he has a "I'm right and you're wrong" style and you don't think a discussion will be of any use. However, I have noticed the same "I'm right and you're wrong" style among most of Jon's detractors also. I would like to break that attitude because it stifles truthful conversation. I have tried for about a year on BGG and have found a few posters that it's wroth discussing issues with. Most were of the "I'm right and you're wrong" type there too but a few other reasonable posters and I are making inroads. I have learned a lot and I find it somewhat enjoyable. Now, put yourself in Jon's shoes for a minute. He's looking at this forum as a way to discuss ideas and nobody will even discuss them with him, preferring to just make a snarky comment or two each time he posts. What is he supposed to think? What I am saying to you is, if he is so obviously wrong to you, discuss with him civilly why you think he is wrong. He may be shocked at first but a real conversation might ensue and perhaps you will find some common ground. I presume there cannot be a total meeting of the minds because there are some fundamental differences in philosophies - the Constitution as written as opposed to a living breathing document for example.

It looks like someone went through a lot of work to put up that site, with several categories of "news" stories. And as gullible as I am made out to be, I didn't find one headline that looked remotely credible. This is an example for those that don't want to visit the site: Israel to Resettle 1 Million Palestinians on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch It's hard to believe that he replaces all that content daily.

duplicate post ;(

Ah, so you would reverse with less, but need this much to bid 3H forcing.

What is the worst heart suit that you would hold for this auction? 1D P 1S P 2H P 2S P 3H S-x H-??xxx D-AKQxxx C-x Also, do you think 3H is forcing, and if not, what calls would be forcing over 2S? (I read mikeh's pinned thread but one of my partner's doesn't buy what he says)

I think I have taken the high road and will attempt to continue to do that by making no assumptions about the other posters. While demographics support your guess about Mike's anti-white racism, he may be an exception. We are no better than they are if we call them racists without proof.

I play those sequences the same way Caitlynne does.

a.- (2♥)-4♠ Very strong. Overcaller eschewed a jump to 3S which is pretty powerful, and also double followed by various spade bids. b.- (3♥)-5♦ This time the real options were 4D or 5D or double followed by diamonds if you got the chance. I would think this is a hand that make 5D opposite something like Qxx, Qxx, xx, Kxxxx which might pass a 4D overcall. c.- 1♣-(1♠)-2♥-(3♠*) 5♣I believe he is bidding what he thinks he can make opposite a typical minimum (or perhaps a bit better than minimum) 2H bid with a doubleton club. *Pre-emptive

1NT Double Pass 2C 1NT = strong Double = penalty (this pair would double with a strong notrump) Pass = undefined Does anybody play that 2C is something other than a weak hand with long clubs?

Yes, I do notice that, however, the movies do have to be somewhat realistic. You won't see movies with modern day radical Jewish terrorists, and most racists in the movies will probably look like a white has-been football player. In fact, I am surprised at the fact that almost every one of CBS's Madam Secretary shows deals with Islamic terrorism; I thought the PC culture would demand that they not do that. I look at what you said from my own angle - in many instances I have a social group from my own race because those are the people that I have met. At one location I had just moved to, I was looking to have a card party and wanted to invite people from work. I chose to invite single people first since I presumed the married ones wanted to be with their families. Included were two black people. They both came, and would have been in my new group except for the fact that one of the other people that came was openly racist and caused the group to fall apart. I did play chess once a week with one of the black guys (we were about evenly matched.) However, when I moved away from that job, there just weren't that many people of other races to socialize with. I believe that the same is true for most people, it's not that they don't care to socialize with people of other races, it's that the opportunity isn't there. And yes, until I recently did my research, I had assumed anti-discrimination laws weren't needed. I was surprised at how wrong I was. I'm not doubting what you say. How do make the system more fair? I'm willing to switch the discussion over to that if you wish.

That was not one of them, however :D

True. Could be a good plan although when you later bid 7H out of the blue, the opponents should wake up. I suspect that many of the readers for which this column is intended would not play 4D as a splinter and almost none of them would play 4C as a fit-showing jump (and certainly very few pairs at any level would play both :lol: ) Also, since I'm talking to I/N's, even if they did have the agreement, they probably discussed it a long time ago and it has never come up, and it would be a da*n shame to play your cold grand slam in 4 of a minor :D

Hearts may outrank the minors but that doesn't mean you can make as many tricks in hearts as they do in their minor. Secondly, even if you can make 5H and them only 5D, I'd rather be playing 4H than defending 6D (or playing 6H depending on how seriously you take our "outbid at every level" statement.)

Thank you! (and thank you too mikeh) I was starting to worry there. Yes, the same thing is true for women as for blacks. The same thing is true for anybody that might successfully win a discrimination lawsuit. I don't think that a woman will take advantage when she wasn't discriminated against any more than I think a black would. However, just like the black, the woman might think she didn't get promoted because she's a woman, when in reality there was some other reason. It's not likely but it's possible. Of course, if a man sues for discrimination based on gender, he will probably be laughed out of the courtroom. Clearly I don't. That's not to say that the difference in expectation is going to cause people not to hire any women or blacks or gays or... Sometimes the black or the woman or whoever is more qualified and will get hired anyway. Sometimes they'll be equally qualified but the black or woman or whoever will do better in the interview. Sometimes all the "safe" qualified white men will already be hired. Sometimes the interviewer won't consider the small chance of getting sued. That seems quite likely as almost all of you seem to think the idea is ridiculous. Because the initial comment that started the post (by someone else) was about blacks being not called back for a job. If it was about gays not being called back, this entire discussion would have been about gay anti-discrimination lawsuits and you would be calling me homophobic, and wondering why I hate gays and not mentioning blacks. I don't hate any of them. I am strictly talking about a business's bottom line. Is it a cruel and heartless fact I am pointing out? Yes, of course. I think it's absolutely deplorable that we need anti-discrimination laws. But apparently we do need them. I actually did some hiring at one point. I was thrust into interim manager when our manager quit and we needed more programmers. Human Resources sent me several "extremely qualified" candidates and I gave each and every one of them a piece of paper with some pseudo code. The first line was LET N=0 and the value of N never changed and at some point I had a line PRINT N. I asked each applicant what the code did and out of maybe 20 applicants, only one person did not say that the program printed a number larger than zero. I hired him. If that person had have been black or Muslim or gay or a pregnant woman, I would have hired him or her because to me it would have been the only person I would have hired. We needed about three people. If the first three applicants had been black and they all got it right I would have called HR and said "I have my three people, hire them, I don't need to see any more" and gone back to work. Of course, I wasn't going to be the one that got sued :D

The easier way is to get enough states to agree to send their delegates based on the popular vote. If states totaling 270 or more electoral votes do this, future elections will be based on popular vote.

sorry to be such a buzzkill http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif

It would be wonderful if I thought of myself as a despicable human being? No thank you. I almost got out a couple of days ago but I got sucked back in. For an evening it was a fair discussion. Then back to the normal sh*t where everybody thinks the worst of me, and it matters not what I say, it's all going to be taken in the worst possible light. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. You will all think of me as a despicable human being. There really seems to be no reason to engage here anymore for the chance of an honest discussion seems somewhat hopeless when it is assumed that everything I say is said with the most evil intent in mind.

Do you think you're a racist? No? Oh, you share that characteristic with many bigots, who, as do you, claim that racism is a certain set of behaviors and that you don't condone those particular behaviors and Q.E.D. you are not racist. See how that sounds? You could say that to anybody. But for some reason, you said it to me, because you, like the others, assume the worst in all my motives. I could just as easily say the same thing to you. You are racist against female American bridge players. I have proof - look at the way you're treating me. You can give me stories about how well you treat other female American bridge players, and I can, as you did, cast them aside and say "Just because you treated this one female okay doesn't mean you're not racist." And I know full well that my argument makes no damn sense. But your argument is similar. Are you saying it would be possible to find, if it existed (which I believe it does) an employer who admits not to hire a black for the economic reason of a potential lawsuit down the road? Of course, again, think the worst. I'm not saying blacks are going to evilly be sue-happy to take advantage of the current legal climate. I'm saying that in many times a black would be not promoted or laid off or fired due to a reason that had nothing to do with skin color, but the black thinks that because he was the slighted one, he might believe that it did have to do with skin color. And how would he know? He could be right. But whether he's right or wrong, the suit may happen. And if he's wrong and the employer was fair, the legal costs of the defense exist anyway. Plus, not all court rulings go the same way; the employer could lose seven figures even when he's done nothing wrong. If he's a small business owner, that could mean his retirement and all his kids' college funds are gone. Even if the risk is trivial, it is still present. See the discrimination insurance argument in response to Diana. Yes, this discussion started with this post. You'll notice no mention of Latinos, gays, Native Americans, Asians, or people with disabilities in this post. You will have to take my word for it, but I have been accused of being bigoted against Muslims ten times as often as I have been accused of being bigoted against blacks. I point this out simply because you think the worst of me and think that I have this vendetta against blacks. Not at all. I have been very vocal against radical Islamic terrorism and since I dare to include the word Islamic, many others have also assumed the worst about me and just assume that I hate all Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have nothing against non-radical Muslims and I have nothing against blacks. However you can assume that I am lying because it is in fashion to assume the worst about Kaitlyn this week. So you may be thinking that my friends assume the worst about blacks and I am doing the same because that's in fashion in my crowd. Well, I can turn it around and say that you are assuming the worst about Kaitlyn because that's in fashion in your crowd. And of course I know that is absolute bullcrap. Just as much bullcrap as me assuming the worst about blacks. Wrong. I've had these discussions before. The exact words are different but the sentiment is the same. Looking for the truth is considered racist if any of the assumptions involve race. For example, recently we were discussing homicides and somebody quoted the statistics for blacks in homicides, both as perp and as victim. Everybody jumped all over him for being racist but all he was doing was quoting the DOJ statistics! He was not saying that blacks were predisposed to violence. He even pointed out that it probably wasn't race itself but single parent homes that was the major factor. But the whole forum wouldn't take anything he said seriously from that point on because he was a racist so his ideas didn't matter anymore. I feel like that was happening here. Kudos to Winstonm and PassedOut for at least trying to be fair. Are you f****** kidding me? I praised myself? Really? Seriously? I used that statement to show that I couldn't believe that someone would be so bat sh*t crazy as to NOT attend that bank. I certainly didn't point it out to show that I was doing something special. While I agree with what you are saying, assuming I am racist is assuming the worst in my motives. I'm not sure I've given you evidence to make that assumption. But everyone has.

I have seen a series of posts that try to portray me and what I have said in the worst possible light, and to assume the worst possible motives in each case. You're right, Diana, people bring their evil twin here. Am I being racist because I state what I think a business owner might do? Am I being racist by pointing out that a person has a lower economic expectation by hiring a black person under the current law than a white person, because there is some chance of a disastrous lawsuit due to racial discrimination? Try a thought exercise. Let's say I could by insurance to cover discrimination lawsuits. How much would I have to pay for that insurance if I hired a white person? How much would I have to pay for that insurance if I hired a black person? Is there an economic difference? Why am I being a racist for pointing out the obvious? It is because the politically correct people refuse to point out the obvious that some problems will never be solved. I'm not saying he is so afraid, just that there is some negative expectation, and if as a business owner you take a lot of negative expectations, you won't be in business very long. But by all means assume I am thinking the worst. Plus, a black person who is laid off (even due to seniority) may think the reason he was the one let go is because he is black, even though it might have been a random choice. It is unbased, but to the black it seems like he has a legitimate gripe. As I pointed out, the employer may be acting fairly but the black might have a right to feel slighted. He doesn't know the employer's motive and might believe it is racist. After all, if I was the employer, every one of you would think I did it for a racist reason. However, I might have used seniority, drawn straws, or used some measure of merit. However, every one of you would think that the black had a valid lawsuit against me because I am so obviously and incredibly racist. So it wouldn't matter if I was fair or not. Plus, a lot of lawyers will take on the suit for a percentage of damages and it won't cost the person who files suit anything. You were the one who posted that silly "nigg*r nigg*r nigg*r" quote. I was just pointing out that this isn't who I am. No, I presented the race of the individuals to show that they were not trying to be racist bigots, but just ignorant jerks who didn't know that they were being hurtful. But of course, you assumed the worst about me. I did have a motive for saying it, but it was not a bad motive.

Agree. Although you may get the hand rightsided anyway. Open 2C, partner bids 2D, you bid 3D, partner either bids a 5-card major, or probably bids 3NT without one. I'd rather have partner playing 3NT. If partner doesn't have a 5-card major, I'd rather shoot out 3NT than 5D.

Interesting. I looked this morning and I could swear that someone else called my position racist also, but apparently they deleted the post. So I am responding to one of you instead of two of you. You don't know me. Let me describe a situation I was in and maybe that will give you a better view of my deplorable racist ideas. I was playing an online game in which several of the players where very high IQ but very low tact college age Asians (living in Asia.) Since many of them are much smarter than I am, I am frequently the target of their abuse, being called a f***tarded cu** or other woman-demeaning phrase. This barely bothers me since I am not a snowflake (and as you can see, Richard is rather tame by comparison.) However, one day they were calling each other "nigga" - they thought that was cool because they picked it up from some American rap "music". I was outraged. Fortunately, two frequent players who I suspect are black were not on at the time, but I let them have it, letting them know how uncool it was and it would be very hurtful to anyone with dark skin which I thought some of the regulars possessed. Even though for a while they kept it up and called me a prude, it must have done some good because I haven't seen them use the term since, despite still using other fairly vicious but non-racist language. Another time they had just picked up the term fagg*t and this time they weren't as lucky - a gay person was playing. He started complaining about the use of the term and they just gave him crap for it. I was livid. These ignorant geniuses thought it was like calling someone a stupid jerk and didn't have any idea how hurtful they were being. I tried to explain it but this time they were a little less understanding. It turns out that one of the players used that term as a term of endearment (seems like an odd choice, but what do I know?) and once I could convince him to choose a different term of endearment and the others that this was another really hurtful term, that one stopped too. However, Winstonm and PassedOut did achieve their mission. I told them that if they said the right thing they would convince me that my position was wrong. And they did in fact say the right thing. They convinced me to do some research on discrimination lawsuits. And while I did not find what I was looking for, I did run across several articles that made me realize that I was wrong about one thing: that in this politically-correctness charged world, few minorities are discriminated against anymore. My assumption (which I never totally laid out, and if I had, they would have realized the problem and got me to the correct solution much sooner) was that discrimination lawsuits were hurting blacks more by having employers not hire them due to fear of being sued than they were being helped by the suits themselves; in other words, that the number of blacks not hired out of fear of being sued was greater than the number of blacks helped by anti-discrimination lawsuits. I had thought that at one time, that this was not true; that we lived in a nation with racism running rampant and the blacks really needed the anti-discrimination suits. However, I had (incorrectly) assumed that with all the political correctness going on now, that this wasn't much of a problem, and that the blacks were actually being harmed by the existence of such suits (by employers fearing them.) However, in trying to do the research to back up my supposition, I found that one of my assumptions was wrong. Racism in hiring and promotions still does run rampant, and perhaps not for the reasons I mentioned, but for really despicable reasons like "black clerks just aren't as attractive so we might get less customers." Now, I don't see that at all; my bank branch usually has exactly zero white tellers on duty (in a mainly white town) and I still choose to go there as well as many other people, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I can't imagine not patronizing a business because its clerks were black. Do people really do that? Sadly, the answer must be yes if blacks aren't being hired for that reason. While I suspect that none of you would be in that group, let me say something to all of the morons who would really not shop somewhere because they had black clerks: "You are probably the same people who voted for Trump because you want to ship eleven million undocumented workers home tomorrow because they are stealing our jobs. Well those clerks you are trying to avoid, they are Americans with jobs. So stop being f****** hypocrites and support the businesses that are hiring Americans!" I really had no clue that racism was still as bad as it was. It was really hard for me to see because the liberals were calling me a deplorable racist when I don't see myself that way, so I just assumed that when they claimed there were still millions of racists, that they were calling a whole bunch of people like me racist and they were basically full of s***. But reading about companies not hiring blacks because it would make their businesses less attractive to customers (a totally disgusting thought to me, and TBH I couldn't have imagined this was the case) was an eye-opener. I'm not convinced that an employer doesn't reduce his economic expectation by hiring a person more likely to be successful in an anti-discrimination lawsuit (blacks, women, etc.), however while I thought that the solution was to abolish anti-discrimination suits, I no longer feel that way. New information has made me think that the number of deplorable people is way higher than I had thought and the anti-discrimination lawsuits are still necessary. I still feel that they could hurt the blacks in hiring situations, but they may help the blacks more because real racism still exists to a great extent.

I appreciate the time you spent on this (especially as you could have used it more fruitfully on BBO :) ) I applaud small business owners and hope that being fair does protect you, for I think it's very unfair when somebody takes it on the chin through no fault of his own.

I tried using many different sets of search terms and could not find out the percentage of racial discrimination cases filed by blacks (or minorities) or the amounts won. Most search terms sent me to EEOC articles. One said that there were over thirty thousand racial discrimination cases filed in 2012. I have to think most of them were minorities. However, many of the articles pointed out actual discrimination. This is wrong also. But I have to wonder how many of the non hires were not because the minority was considered bad, but instead for the reasons I am stating - that they are afraid that if they don't promote the minority worker later or have to let him go, they face legal challenges. Because TBH I don't see any other economic reason not to hire the qualified minority person, and for these companies, it's the bottom line, baby. Maybe I have to dig harder to find the statistics I'm looking for - it may not be Googleable but it may be there if I happen to hit upon the right government website and follow the links down. In any event, something that I thought would take 20 minutes now seems like it will take hours and might bear no fruit.

Of course. Hiring should be a purely economic decision. Don't you agree?

Clearly I need to do some research to answer your first question. i think it is very unlikely that whites win as often or as much money or are as costly to litigate against in discrimination cases than blacks. However, I do not know in how many of the cases the lawsuit had merit. Probably in some cases, the lawsuit had no merit but the suing black had reason to think he was being discriminated against. It could be as simple as the boss drawing straws and a couple of whites getting promoted ahead of the black. The black wasn't discriminated against but he thought he was. So he sues and it costs the employer money. If it was a white employee, the suit never would have happened. I don't think it's my own bias but I know that I would have that fear and would be surprised if others who actually were in a position to hire people didn't have the same fear whether it was justified or not. And I'm not even saying that it's justified, as long as the fear is there, blacks are getting hired less. I really don't see how you can argue with that. And I'm all for changing the situation so that the fear isn't there and blacks do not get hired less. Because I don't think that people that run businesses really have it in for blacks. They are simply looking out for the bottom line. Your question about hiding not hiring blacks: If you have to hire 100 people, and none of them are black, you are going to get caught, so you have to suck up the fear of being sued because you're getting sued anyway. And isn't this just a great position for an employer to be in - they have to risk being sued in order to avoid being sued - all because the courts may award a black person who says he was discriminated against a payment or make it expensive for that not to happen. If you are a small business owner and hire six people, you're probably not going to get caught. You could simply give a test to your applicants and say you took the highest grades. I would hope that would stand up in court. Donald Trump's father lived in a different era. If the lawsuit issue was gone, I think very few people today would have a blanket policy to not hire blacks. But your post and PassedOut's last post are telling me that I need to look deeper into the situation before continuing, because I am coming to a point where I need to gather some facts to back me up. While it is not possible to find out how many people refused to hire a black because of fear of a lawsuit, it is possible to find out how successful these lawsuits are, and it might even be possible to find out how costly they are when they aren't successful. Whether the suits had merit or not is going to be a lot harder to find out, for whether the suit was won is probably more correlated with the relative skills of the lawyers than the merits of the case.