bid_em_up

UGHHH!!!! Long explanatory rant thought better of and shortened :o (none of these smilies look frustrated). <sarcasm> No kidding?!?!?! You must be joking? </sarcasm> If you read more carefully what I write, I think you'll find that I am one of the more articulate and clearly spoken posters around. I go much farther out of my way than most people to be detailed and explicit, as a general rule, and not just on this forum. That's the primary reason my posts tend to be so long. And your poor assumptions about what I'm saying here are denied by things I've already said. I explicitly said that this definition doesn't match IRS tax codes. I'm well aware that there's a specific application process for the status, that it has certain exacting standards, and that it can be pulled (notably the IRS has recently asked for the financial records of a handful of so-called "mega-churches" because of questions regarding the mishandling of funds). Here's the important point: CONCEPTUALLY, that definition matches my understanding of BBOs raison d'être. In combination with my guess that BBO hasn't turned a profit, this implies (to me) that their aim is to be non-profit (or not-for, I've never been clear on the distinction). But I was already perfectly well aware of everything you wasted your time saying. You know Aaron, for all the arrogance contained in this post, I think if you go back and read your supposedly well written verse, you will find that it says exactly what I stated that it appeared to. I admit I was surprised by it, and was trying to make sure that you weren't actually saying what I was reading, and simply clarifying just in case. Especially since more than one of us apparently thought it said the same thing. It wasnt just me.

Obviously, these are not the IRS definitions, but BBO certainly fits this description. I think there are a few around here who would know for sure, but I'd guess yes. Anyway, the tangents are interesting to me, but perhaps inappropriate here...I will cease my digressions before they become transgressions. Setting aside the Wikipedia definition of non-profit organization for a moment, there is a big difference between a non-profit organization and a "for profit" company that is simply not making a profit. I could be mistaken, but it appears (to me) that you think that just because BBO is likely to not be making a profit, that it is by default, a non-profit company. That inference cannot be made. Now, returing to the definition, just because a company participates in the activities listed, again does not mean that any particular company is a "non-profit" organization. The ACBL is a non-profit organization (or at least it used to be, I think it still is). Charities are usually non-profit organizations. They have no intention of making a profit (and in fact, they are not allowed to do so by law/IRS regulations). They can take in an amount of money equal to their expenses (and maybe slightly more for budgeting purposes, not sure) but there is some limit on how much it can be. I would have to believe that Fred would be thrilled if BBO was actually making a profit, even if there was no expectation of being able to do so. That would make BBO a "for-profit" company. (Of course, this is strictly my opinion, only the powers that be could actually answer the question).

Whoop-tee-do. These cases are in no way, shape, form or fashion similar to the ones that I gave, and you damn well know it. Please don't try and compare the cases I listed versus cases that relied on the testimony of accomplices, hearsay and other felons for the police to make their case in favor of your position. It is absolute and total bullshit for you to attempt to do so. In the cases I listed, there is absolutely no doubt as to whether or not you have the right person. Or that their crimes were of such a nature that the perpetrators deserve the worst fate possible. In the case of the girl fed to the alligators, her mother, who was also a victim during the same crime, survived and identified their attacker. The man admitted to forcing the girl out of the car and thowing her into the marshes of Alligator Alley knowing that the alligators would eat her. There is absolutely no doubt that you have the right person, and that he is guilty as charged. In the case of the Jessica Lunsford, her DNA was found in her killers residence, and I don't mean hair or trace fibers. Her urine was in his closet, from where he had locked her in it, amongst other things. She had tears in her vaginal walls and her blood was all over his bed. He admitted to raping her several times and stuffing her into garbage bags before burying her when he found out the police were looking for both him and her. She supposedly was still alive at the time police came and knocked on the door where he was living (his roommates answered the door and said he was not there), but they did not actually search the place to see if he (or Jessica) was there. He didn't even have enough balls to actually kill her before shoving her into the garbage bags; he just left her to suffocate to death after being buried. HE told the police where the body was buried. Again, there is absolutely no doubt that you have the right person and that he is guilty as charged. Note, I have not said the death penalty should be applied unilaterally to everyone who has been found guilty of what is considered to be a capital crime. Yes, of course, mistakes are possible, and the justice system should be absolutely certain that it has the right person and that the punishment befits the crime before applying its finality as means of punishment. But that does not mean that the death penalty is never an appropriate sentence. And I guess you know where I stand as well.

Possibly.

Ok, what am I missing? If I add the probabilities of all hands that have 2 or fewer non-club losers together, I infer than 5C makes 59.1% of tjme and that you have estimated losers of between 2.5/3 54.4% of the time. Clearly this is not possible and even it it was, it appears to favor bidding 5C, not that game is unlikely.

My keyboard has the Print Screen/SysRq key, but I just tested it and it did not require ALT in order to screen capture. I was going to post something similar to you, but figured before I said "it's not always that easy" I'd actually try it out and was surprised at what I found. BTW: it worked with or without ALT. Well, I'll be damned. Never tried it without the ALT, since it was on the top of the key, I just inferred that either ALT or SHIFT was necessary for it to work. Thanks.

This claim is just silly. You may think so. I don't. It's not really a question of what you think. Your claim is not one of opinion and subjectivity. You made a claim of fact: that these murders clearly require, with no explanation necessary, the execution of the death penalty on their perpetrators. This SIMPLY IS NOT true on its face. It may be true (I'm not at the moment arguing one way or the other), but it is not obviously evident, period. To say that it is, when carefully considered, is quite honestly very insulting to those of us who disagree. You're essentially saying we're too stupid to see an obvious truth. That's why I call it silly, because I don't think you honestly mean to draw this conclusion, but you have. Now, you can say that it's too complicated, or emotional, or that you don't want to argue it, or whatever. You can make an argument that human life isn't sacrosanct, or say "I believe in an eye for an eye," or "for the safety of the other inmates" or whatever. But you can't just hop into a discussion with a bunch of intelligent people and expect to get away with the statement "it is obvious and you all are just too stubborn to see it." Give reason or say you won't give reason, but don't say "no reasoning is necessary." First, the original poll question was, to me, essentially one of "is it necessary to have a death penalty" and we were given two choices. My reading of the choices was of a manner that said: "Yes, sometimes it is an appropriate sentence" or "No, capital punishment is never needed, end of discussion." I gave examples of cases why I think that sometimes the death penalty is an appropriate sentence and that it should exist. The cases, in and of themselves, speak to the fact that some people are capable of committing crimes of such a nature that show that the person who committted the crimes is no longer a functioning part of society. They are subhuman. They are mere pieces of trash and sometimes the garbage must be taken out, no matter how ugly it may be. Now, you may not like that statement or attitude, and I really don't care if you don't. You are entitled to your own opinion. However, if you honestly believe that someone who rapes a 10 year old girl and then buries her alive or that someone who feeds a FIVE year old to an alligator somehow deserves or has the right to live out the rest of their lives in prison (which, to me, is exactly what you are saying if you think the death penalty is never appropriate) while these young innocent children died terrifying deaths at their hands, then, yes, I think your opinion (not you) is stupid. Their right to exist ceased the moment they chose to commit such crimes.

While that link provides one way to do a screen capture, on some keyboards (such as mine), the PRT SCR key and SYS REQ are on the same key next to F12. These require an ALT then Pressing PRT SCR to actually work. Ideally, there would be a button or function key within BBO itself that one could select that would automatically capture the screen and forward to abuse, but thats not likely to happen. Unfortunately, the person informing me of this problem says she isn't interested in reporting it, which irritates me to no end.

Evidently not...amazingly enough.

I'm not sure why I would even argue with someone who hasn't bothered to even read the original question. I tossed nothing in, that was the phrasing of the original question.

This claim is just silly. You may think so. I don't.

Josh, again, the original question was "If you were king for a day: yada yada yada" It was not "how do you decide whether or not someone is deserving of capital punishment." My answer to the question is, "yes, you need to have capital punishment." Your's apparently is "no, capital punishment is bad, end of discussion." I do not need to explain who or why or what criteria is required for someone to decide on the punishment as you seem to think that I do. If I was king, then I would likely be the one to make that decision. If I was king then I would want the option available to me so that in cases such as the ones I gave, where it is reasonably clear the person deserves to be put to death, then that penalty can be served upon them. But I don't have to answer what " specific criteria" needs to be met, in order to state that capital punishment should be an available option, as you seem to think I do.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are. I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X". I don't feel that I need to give any further argument for it. That is totally fine, you can of course believe what you want and make whatever arguments for it that you want or don't want. But then it's totally ridiculous of you to classify the opposing viewpoint as absurd if you don't even feel like bothering to put in the effort to make any sort of real argument against it. Is your criterion for determining who receives the death penalty "the ones that seem to me to obviously deserve it"? Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment. They speak for themselves. If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise. It really isn't about what "my criteria" for capital punishment is. It is about whether or not the option of capital punishment should be available at all. Clearly, there are cases where the punishment fits the crime. If you can look at these cases and say honestly say "no these people should not be executed" or "I honestly believe they could be rehabilitated" (which I note, you haven't), then yes, you are being absurd.

Ok, so I get home from work tonight and a female friend of mine on BBO tells me: her: I played with *insert star's name here* her: do u know who he is? me: yes her: and this pig her: after the team match her: started to ask me questions about my ass and my tits and if i enjoy anal sex :) Now, I have no way of knowing if it is true or not, but I have no reason to believe she is making this up either. Does she have any recourse?

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are. I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X". I don't feel that I need to give any further argument for it. The original question was "If you were king of the world, is A) Yes, capital punishment is needed sometimes or B ) No, capital punishment is bad, end of discussion". You appear to support the B version. I give the examples only to show why you must have capital punishment. Note, I did not say that all murderers or rapists or whatever should be executed, but there are cases where such punishment befits the crime. If you do not have capital punishment available as an option, then how do you deal with people who commit such atrocities? "Oh sorry, bad boy, don't do it again, in the meantime we will provide you food, shelter and clothing for the rest of your life?" I don't think so.

In the U.S., many trials will include a "victim impact" portion during the sentencing phase of the trial, where the victim (in a non-murder trial) or the victim's family are allowed to state their feelings/sentiments regarding how their lives have been affected by the crime and the type of sentence they wish to see implemented. Many? I believe it's completely standard practice in the sentencing phase of any trial in the US. It could be. It is my understanding that it is usually only used in capital offense cases though (rape, kidnapping, murder, etc.). You dont usually see a "victim impact" phase of say, a bank robbery.

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty. Maybe you have not been through the experience of knowing anyone who was murdered. I do, one of my teachers was murdered along with the sister of one of my classmates when I was 12, both shot in the back of the head, or maybe you are unaware of some of the heinous crimes that are committed in our country. Lets talk real crime for a minute: Someone mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer? He should have been executed. He was later killed by another inmate in prison. Thankfully. Ted Bundy? Fried. Good. Wayne Williams? (The alleged Atlanta Child murderer) Life in Prison. But in his case, the evidence was mostly circumstancial. In this case, life imprisonment was an appropriate sentence since there was a lot of uncertainty regarding the case. There are those who do not believe he was guilty. I lived in Atlanta during this time, you would not believe the amount of fear that the entire city was in. Harrel Franklin Braddy? One you are likely not to have heard of. Mr. Braddy, having been released from prison after serving only 13 out of a 30 year sentence for a previous attempted murder conviction, proceeded to choke his then current girlfriend until she passed out, and then took her and her 5, FIVE, year old daughter in his car. Upon coming to, the girlfriend realized what was occurring, and jumped from the car with her daughter. "Braddy stopped, choked the woman again and put her in the trunk, she testified. Maycock never saw her daughter again. Prosecutors said Braddy then drove to a section of Interstate 75 in the Florida Everglades known as Alligator Alley and dropped Quatisha in the water beside the road." She was alive when alligators bit her on the head and stomach, a medical examiner said. Authorities found the girl’s body two days later, her left arm missing and her skull crushed, prosecutors said. Maycock woke up bleeding and disoriented in a cane field miles from her Miami-Dade County home. The really sad part of this is that this crime occured in 1998. It took until 2007 to actually bring Mr. Braddy to trial due to his (and/or his lawyers) manipulation of the U.S. Justice System, and it will probably take another 15-20 years to actually execute this worthless excuse of a life form. http://www.observationdeck.org/weblogs/vault/?p=62 May you fry in hell, Mr. Braddy. If you say that this sorry POS "deserves" another chance, having been given one opportunity already on his previous conviction, that fed a FIVE year old girl to the alligators, and cannot relate to the horror that this girl had to have suffered, there is something wrong with you. John Evander Couey? The sorry bastard (and previously convicted child molester) who killed 10 year old Jessica Lunsford by burying her alive. Why should he have the right to continue to exist on the face of this earth? He had been arrested some 20+ times in 30-year period (and at the time, he was 46). A crack addict. "Couey admitted to raping Jessica after taking her to his room at his half-sister's home, keeping her in bed with him for the rest of the night, then raping her again in the morning. Jessica's clothed body was found inside two tied plastic garbage bags. Her wrists were bound, but she had managed to poke two fingers through the plastic in an attempt to free herself. When the bags were completely removed, investigators saw that she had died clutching her prized purple dolphin." (True Crime). Tell me this POS doesn't deserve to die. He is currently on death row appealing his sentence. Unfortunately, he may actually win because evidently during his initial questioning by police detectives, he requested a lawyer (seven times??) and the idiot cops failed to stop questioning him and provide him with a lawyer. How would you feel if you were Mr. or Mrs. Lunsford and this man were to have his conviction overturned on a technicality of this nature?? Doesn't matter, Mr. Couey will probably survive longer in prison than he would if he was released back into the general public. I doubt he wants to get out of prison. One last one: John Allen Muhammad, the Beltway Sniper. He and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo (who was approximately 17 at the time of the killings), murdered at least 10 people and injured several others in what were random shootings. Mr. Muhammad is currently on death row, but his teenage partner in crime and admitted triggerman in several of the murders only received life in prison because he was under the age of 18. Oh please. These are just a few examples of what the death penalty is MEANT to be used for. These people have (had) no reason to be allowed to continue to exist on the face of this earth. Granted, capital punishment is not a penalty that should be taken lightly. It should be reserved for the most hideous and horrid of crimes and when there is absolutely no doubt with respect to guilt. But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

Victims can be witnesses. I don't see any reason why they would be heard beyond that, except maybe in cases such as domestic violence where the criminal may pursue so the same victim in the future. After all, the ones who have stakes in punishment are potential future victims of the same criminal, or of other potential criminals who might be deterred from committing by the thread of punishment. The idea that victims have an interest in revenge just for the sake of it is widespread but I think it's completely irrational. I suppose most (all?) countries' criminal codes are partially based on that idea. I would prefer that not to be the case. Richard puts this simpler: we should have grown beyond the eye-for-an-eye mentality. In the U.S., many trials will include a "victim impact" portion during the sentencing phase of the trial, where the victim (in a non-murder trial) or the victim's family are allowed to state their feelings/sentiments regarding how their lives have been affected by the crime and the type of sentence they wish to see implemented.

I think even a bad player could find a 3♣ bid when partner doubles and they are 5-5-2-1.

Small spade.

Given that you cannot take another trick in spades, it is suit preference.

Shouldn't it be a 6-2 fit? Otherwise, what was the purpose of 2S? Partner could have bid 2N with only 5 spades and a club stop (instead of 2S). Mark me down for 4S.

Yes.

I would like to be able to have a script execute each time a new player sits at table that I am host of. Only the new player would see this script each time. If the new player is somebody on my friends list, they dont need to see the script. Is it possible to do this? If so, how? Edit: Secondary thought, can I just send the script to the new opponent myself?

From Cassell's Dictionary of Slang: lumpy = tipsy, slightly drunk (circa 19th century to early 1900's) lumphead = absolute fool, idiot, totally incompetent (circa 1910-1960) No explanation given as to how the word originated, but evidently it did not refer to just a poor bridge player/gambler. (btw, Google is a great tool for finding stuff like this out) B) Google: lumpy slang