pbleighton

"The flexible 3♦ is wrong for much the same reason as in the other thread. It has nothing to do with your hand and partner won't have a clue what's going on. I voted for 5C, even a nice hand as xx xx xxx KQJxxx makes slam difficult to play after a diamond lead. And partner doesn't need a suit as good as that." I agree. Peter

"And so back to Mike's question: what will Congress do about it" In the short term, pass some sort of non-binding resolution. The money is already appropriated for this fiscal year. The Democrats will keep the pressure on the Republicans, who are terrified of 2008 being a repeat of 2006. Come autumn, FY08 budget time, the surge will have failed, and the debate will intensify. I could see the Repulican congressional leadership telling Bush "a lot of our guys are going to vote to cut off funds unless you come up with a withdrawal policy". It's uncertain what Bush would do then. There is a critical number as to public support for the war. Right now it is unpopular by 2-1, but still only a relatively small minority want to leave RIGHT NOW. When "RIGHT NOW" hits 51% (I don't know when this will be, but I think the escalation, pardon me I meant "surge", has made the date ealier than it would have been), Congress will do something meaningful. And if Bush vetoes the legislation, we will have a constitutional crisis. And if Bush thinks his poll numbers are low now... Peter

"Ok, I am lost....and the Question Peter still wants an answer to is? Just asking." First post in the thread, Mike :o Peter

"With someone thats intelligent, I think you are doing your partnership a disservice by not trusting your partner to figure out what a certain call means." It's not intelligence, Phil, it's the level of bridge experience. You play at a higher level than I do. I'm not saying I never have to hope my partner "gets it". What I do is to try to avoid creative (i.e. not agreed upon) calls with non-natural meanings. We try not to lose at bridge :o Peter

"Peter; you opened this can of worms. I'm sorry if the fallout isn't what you expected." I post in the Water Cooler a lot more than you do, Phil. I'm not shocked. However, to tell you the truth, I'm a bit disapointed in the direction the thread has taken - I had hoped for a better mix of commentary. I really am interested in people's differing perceptions of what it means to be a Christian (and other religions as well, but Christianity is dominant in the U.S.), and how society is evolving religiously and philosophically. "I didn't say it was a good thing. But if you really believe you really think its a mixed bag, feel free to bring up some positive examples." Two (very different) examples which spring to mind are: 1. Charitable works by religious organizations. 2. The preservation of works classical civilization during the Middle Ages. "Do you speak for all atheists?" Oh dear no. Do you speak for all Christians? I'm just giving my experience of the atheists I know. "Living in a place like Los Angeles, I have many friends who are atheist. We have had many conversations about why I am a Catholic and why I believe in God. Their reactions are much like the ones reflected in this thread, ranging from bewilderment to contempt. As a matter of fact, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a group that many atheists despise more then christians." Some of the reactions in this thread have been very rude, and I do not defend them. However, I get some VERY unfavorable reactions when a religious person asks me about my faith, and finds out that I am an atheist. Bewilderment is a mild reaction (and one which doesn't cause me to take any offense). This DEFINITELY cuts both ways. Half of U.S. voters say they wouldn't vote for an atheist for President. We call those who wouldn't vote for a Jew anti-Semitic. What does that make those who wouldn't vote for an atheist? In the U.S. today, the only "religious/nonreligious" group which has more people distrusting/not understanding/despising it than atheists are Muslims. If you were an atheist for a week you would know this. This explains but does not excuse bad behavior by some atheists. Again, those I know personally don't do this, but I know some do. How do you think I feel when Senator A*****e Lieberman (from my state) gets up on his hind legs and says civilization isn't possible without religion? Substitute "Christianity" or "Islam" for "religion" and you'll see that sincerity doesn't excuse this comment. "You are correct, you don't come out and say you hate christianity, and I apologize. I mean that." I accept your apology. You were obviously upset when you posted. I have certainly said and written things I regretted later. "However, you certainly don't come out and say you tolerant of it." I haven't thought that this was necessary. However, as it seems have become necessary, let me state that yes, I am tolerant of Christianity, as I am of all religions (and non-religions). I will, of course, continue to make inflammatory posts on politics, some of which involve harsh criticism of the Religious Right. You may have got your impression of my feelings about Christianity from THOSE posts :o Peter

Phil, your post is extraordinary. "Say what you will, but its really taking a stance to say religion; organized or not, is a bad thing for society." I point out that saying religion is a good thing for society is taking just as much of a stance as saying that it is a bad thing. However, speaking for myself, I have not taken such a stance. I think religion is a mixed bag, and is much more of a reflection of a given society than it is a driver of that society. For example, I think that many so-called "religious wars" are mostly about other things, i.e. Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestinians. "I also think many atheists (Gerben excepted ) have a real deep-seeded hatred of religious people. Yes, now I'M being judgmental, but, I think it frequently dominates cocktail party discussions of like minded atheists, and I have no idea why atheists constantly feel the need to bring it up." Having been to my share of discussions of like minded atheists, I can tell you that there is no such domination. We really don't talk about it much. As to the "deep-seated hatred of religious people" atheists supposed have, as you point out, you apparently don't know many atheists. Your ignorance shows. "Maybe I should start a thread about atheism." Please do. I would be happy to participate. I don't consider bringing up a subject tantamount to a personal attack. "I wonder, what does an atheist say to his family when a loved one passes? Oh, they had a wonderful life and its time to say goodbye?" Yes, Phil, that is what we say. Does this offend you? "I think this thread was brought up for the same reason. Frankly, I don't think Peter cares at all about the number of Christians out there; I think it was brought up because he likes to vent about how much he hates christianity, and there's nothing I've read from him, or Richard that leads me to believe otherwise." 1. You are dead wrong about what I care about. This is ignorance. 2. You are publicly calling me a liar about what I care about. Shame on you. 3. Would you please supply a quote which demonstrates my so-called hate of Christianity (which BTW doesn't exist). Peter

I once read that you should "never test partner". Works for me. Peter

Pd should have 7 clubs, or an excellent 6 card suit, and less than 16 (probably less than 15) hcp. I bid 5C. Peter

"You didn't need to add this. While your check list above should already be highly controversial for the US only, it just doesn't make any sense with regards to most European Christians..." That was the point of 7. etc. Peter

"Peter, what is your motivation for these questions? I'm a little bothered by the labels you are using.' Simple curiousity. In general, I am interested in what I see as the transition from a traditionally religious society to a more secular (not necessarily atheist/agnostic) society. I am interested in the percentages people give, but even more in what they consider to be a "Christian". What is it that bothers you? I don't mean to offend, but if you don't like the thread there is no need for you to participate in it. Peter

"No. I think this is a stereotype that a lot of non-christians label christians with; that they mindlessly follow dogma." This (belief in every word of the New testament) is true of a significant minority of Chritians in the U.S. Some of these people use this a test of whether someone is a true Christian or not. I don't, it is far too limiting. Peter

"Only off by a factor of two Bebop... For you, this is quite the accomplishment (in a good sort of way). Keep up this type of improvement and you might actualy get a question right one of these days. In 2001, the percentage of Americans self-identifying as Christian was (roughly) 80%" Richard: In the context of my question, the answer could easily be less than the self-identifying percentage. I personally put it at about 40%, though that is a huge guess. Let me give you a couple of examples: 1. A relative (in-law) of mine was brought up Catholic. At this point in her life, she believes that the chances of some God existing is 50-50. She is sure there is some sort of afterlife, but is equally sure there is no Hell. She leans towards either reincarnation or some pure Buddhist melt-into-the-world. She only attands church on holidays, and for a brief period to get her son through communion. 2. Some friends of mine, a married couple, were also raised Catholic. They are sure there is no afterlife. They believe there is probably some sort of God, but pick and choose what parts of the Bible they follow or believe, and think Jesus' existence is problematical. They attend church regularly because they like to feel part of the Catholic community. These three intelligent, well-educated people would tell a pollster they are Christians. They can call themselves anything they want, but they aren't Christian by my definition. I know a fair number of people like this, more so in fact than "real Christians" (my sample is probably skewed, since I live in the Northeast and know mostly college-educated people, two conditions which increase this likelihood). I believe a large percentage of self-identified Christians are actually either agnostics or are non-denominational believers in some vague God, who call themselves Christians because that is how they were raised. Peter

BebopKid, I'm still waiting: "That state religion, Atheism, is the largest practiced religion in the USA." And your evidence for this is? "People of all faiths other than atheism are persecuted in the USA. It started small but is growing bigger every day." And your evidence for this is? Peter

"I'm NOT fond of George Bush, if this question/thread was in any way correlated with the old man." It's not. Peter

A ludicrous statement in another thread inspired this one. It's a thread, not a poll, because your answer to "What percentage of people in your country are Christian" depends on 1. Your country, and 2. Your definition of Christian For example, in the U.S., polls consistently show that over 70% of the public consider themselves Christian. You could accept self-identification, or you could use one or more additional criteria, such as: 1. Belief in Heaven and Hell 2. Belief that Jesus is the Son of God, who physically appeared on the earth, and whose teachings lead the way to Heaven 3. Belief that every word of the New Testament is true 4. Belief that abortion should be illegal 5. Regular church attendance 6. Regular prayer 7. etc. If you would, please state your country and your definition of Christian, and whether you consider yourself a Christian, or if not, what are you. For me: I am from the U.S. I think about 40% of U.S. citizens meet my definition of being a Christian. I consider 1, 2, and either 5 or 6 (or both) to be necessary to be a Christian. I am an atheist. Peter

"That state religion, Atheism, is the largest practiced religion in the USA." And your evidence for this is? "People of all faiths other than atheism are persecuted in the USA. It started small but is growing bigger every day." And your evidence for this is? Peter

"I meant the general election." These states only? :lol: Peter

Not necessarily a good idea, but: Rebid of suit: any minimum hand 3NT: maximum hand without a self sufficient suit and without a good 4 card side suit 3rd suit: maximum hand, decent 4 card suit 4M: self sufficient suit Supply your own definitions of minmum, maximum, and self sufficient. Peter

"I think she can carry NY, IL and Calif." NY yes (but it's too late in the primaries to matter), IL not necessarily (Obama, if he is strong anywhere, will be strong there - otherwise yes she wins), CA may be tough for her, if she has ALL of the money, no, but I don't think she will. I lived in CA for 17 years. I think the Democratic primary voteres may be attracted to someone who's more exciting. Don't get me wrong, Mike. I'm not anti-Hilary, and I would gladly vote for her in the general election. I just don't place as much credence in early polls as you apparently do. BTW, I think the Republican nomination is just as much up for grabs as the Democratic nomination, if not more so. McCain could easily self-destruct. His poll numbers are sliding as it is, though he's still the clear front-runner, and he could say something fatal. If he does, and gets out altogether, it's Rudy versus the anti-Rudy, whoever that is, and THAT would be a fight worth watching. I think Rudy loses that one, and in the end it wouldn't be close. His best chance is to have McCain slide, but stay in the race, and have a social conservative like Brownback emerge as a strong candidate. Rudy would thus be the moderate versus two conservatives. Peter

"Is a bias the same as bigotry? Are you suggesting that voting on the basis of religious bias is the same as bigotry? If bias is prejudice, bigotry is hatred and intolerance. If prejudice is damage to one's rights or claims, I would say they are damaged. " If someone would never vote for an atheist for President, regardless of his/her political views and other qualifications, that person is an anti-atheist bigot. You can substitute Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. for atheist in the above. It makes no difference. Peter

"Peter you are joking yes? Perhaps it should NOT be relevant but show me a viable candidate who says they do not believe in a God? In our lifetime I doubt it. If a position on religion costs millions of votes I would say it is relevant in a practical sense of the word. Am I suggesting there is a huge bias against an aethist candidate in this country and almost every country, Yes. Is there bias against some religions in some, almost all, countries including the USA, yes. " First, the question I asked BebopKid was specific to Christianity, not merely to the religious/atheist divide. I await his answer. Second, are you suggesting that the popularity of anti-atheist bigotry provides an excuse for it? Peter

"Couldn't he bid 2♥ instead of jumping to 3♥ with this hand with spade support?" Yes, which is why I think it should be a splinter. Peter

BebopKid: Once again: "When a Christian man stands up for what's right he's a liar, and when a horny pervert commits adultery in a national treasure he's a hero." "One other thing, everyone who can, please vote for Obama. He's a good, devout Christian." Why is the religious status of a President or Presidential candidate relevant to anything? I expect a coherent answer from you on this Text in bold is sarcastic. Peter

"As I mentioned I thought Mrs. Clinton would have much more of a fight on her hands so I am suprised by her huge lead. Granted it is early and these huge leads always shrink but she looks like she may have the primairies locked up before the first one and a big lead going into November with all the anti Bush anger." Given her name recognition, this isn't surprising. It is early, and these leads always shrink. I think the odds of her getting the nomination are roughly 50%. The nomination may go to someone who isn't even on the radar yet. Peter

I would bid 1H on most days, 4H on the rest. Peter