finally17

2 thoughts: with those #s, I'm just guessing here but it sounds like you have just 1 physical drive that is partitioned. if that's the case, you could repartition the drive to add some space to C: (using something like partitionmagic). but bridgebase files are pretty small and doing a lot of work to handle those is much hassle for little reward...i spend a fair amount of time on bbo, and log everything, and my "bridge base online" folder is just 45 MBs. secondly, maybe i'm wrong, but i find it hard to believe you actually have 30 GBs of installed programs and the like and no data. maybe if you have several big computer games installed...but for example, do you perhaps have your digital camera pics on your computer as well, being imported by some organizer like Picasa or the default one that came with your camera? those programs should handle the movement of your pictures to D: with no problem, and it should also be fairly simple to change their settings so that pictures are stored on D: all the time in the future. mp3s, pictures...it should be easier to move that kind of thing, with far greater reward, than it is to mess with bbo...

it can be annoying to be made table host when the previous table host left, just because you're the "oldest" at the table...for a variety of reasons. for instance, i've been dummy and gotten up, come back and found myself host because the previous host disconnected, and now the previous host is trying to get back into his seat for who knows how long? there are a couple of other times it can be annoying too... i realize it's been forever since bbo updated, but a nice option when next it happens would be a checkbox "don't make me tablehost" to leave you out of the queue for that, if it's not too difficult a thing to add.

sorry kenberg, mikeh. i considered what you said. you're probably right, but i'm going to say the below anyway. it goes to some very disturbing cultural trends here, which are being ignored in favor of mob mentality. you people are amazing. you are almost all blind to the culture you are creating here. you allow a select few, for pitifully weak reasons, to dominate the tone of discussion, regardless of topic. you act as if these select few can say nothing wrong. -someone complains that they take issue with a post -that complaint is mocked -I take vehement objection to the mockery and there is a gang attack on me, how dare I agree that something can be offensive? how dare I take exception to the endemic mockery in this forum? i was loud and verbose, absolutely, because i am sickened by the attitude that was not only expressed, but is ignored by some and allowed to flourish by many. and it's not even just by the MMS. rather than make an effort to be considerate of the reasonable offense someone expressed, you act like a gang of wolves attacking those who do. almost universal refusal to actually examine the situation, an almost universal mob mentality, unwritten agreement to team up with the local powerful, because how dare you end up disagreeing with them! they might mock you next time you want to ask them a bridge question! but that's no reason to be silent, and i'm not going to apologize for not. i'm not going to remain silent just because a few people reasonably think the argument isnt that big a deal. they're right, the argument isn't, but the greater issues that caused the argument are. i may have made enemies of half a dozen or more, but sometimes the list of one's enemies is the biggest badge of honor one can wear, and i submit with confidence that as regards this forum, that's the case. whatever. post 279 i guess, my last one, because i don't care enough to try and continue to deal with such people, and what they have to offer as regards bridge isn't enough to deal with their pitifully wrong superiority complexes. go ahead and have your party now, i'm out.

If it offends you to have it explained to you how you might be offending others, well then there's some irony there isn't there? And no, I'm not missing the irony you're miserably attempting to point out in my own post, it doesn't exist. I'm well aware that you all are being offended. But the irony is here: you are being offended because you are being told, and refuse to accept, that someone might have legitimately offered offense. I didn't enter this tangent of the discussion to offend anyone, I entered it because I found a post ABOUT A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT ignorant, offensive, and completely without merit. My findings might bother you, but I submit that that's because they're true. I don't disagree with the first part of this point. It alone among the several you tried to make has some merit. However firstly, I question whether it's applicable to me or not, and I conclude in fact that no, it is not. Just because you and your little MAS dominate the bridge-discussion thread hardly means you're the only one here. There are many with my level of posting and reading, and you have no standing from which to disenfranchise us in the manner you want to. Furthermore it's not remotely what Han said. He made a distinction between "serious posters" and ... some other group he didn't distinguish. If it's what he meant, for whatever reasons, it's not what can be understood. But even so it doesn't matter, see above. Lastly, the style of my posts? You and your MAS are the ones who regularly attempt to mock people into submission. That kind of posting is what got me started here, and when I dared to stand up to it, it was that kind of posting that attempted to thrust me out of it. My posts? Really? Wow. That's amazing. The style of my posts is to explain thoroughly my views on the situation, so as much as I can help it there can be no question. The mockery, the refusal to accept that others are bothered when they say bluntly that they are, that is a problem style.

My favorite is the Green Knight.

Currently my biggest pet peeve is that there is a certain region of the United States (I haven't tried to fully identify it but southern Illinois is included) where many speakers use the word "whenever" in place of "when" universally. "Whenever you go to the grocery store, get some milk." This should mean "always buy milk when at the grocery store" but these speakers mean "next time you to go to the store, buy milk." And they make this substitution in all cases, still using "whenever" in its proper sense.

I didn't think it had anything to do with my skill level. I brought that up because I honestly feel it's the attitude around this forum at times. And it's relevant here in this very discussion. After I posted it, I wondered how long it would take your little mutual admiration society to show up and defend you. Didn't take long. Besides you, they had posted maybe 3 responses of the previous 75 or so, I just checked. In the 25 since I directed my comments at you and jlall they've posted more than half a dozen, including multiple that were wholly made up of attempts at jokes at my expense. You can criticize this belief I have however you want, but the evidence, and not just in this thread, supports it. They would have gone further to discredit my opinion by keeping their mouths shut, but they failed at that so they strengthen it. I also didn't think it had had anything to do with how often I post in the water cooler. But I think I was clear, it didn't have anything to do with anything at all. It was apparently just your anger acting out. It should further be noted that you claimed that I was trying to tell you how to behave, while in fact I never once did that. Earlier on in the thread I expressed my opinions as to how things should be monitored. I said multiple times that I have issues with censoring. But I defended the stance that there was some offense to be had in your jokes, even if I didn't have it. And I expressed categorically my annoyance that jlall, who has barely even lived "in the real world," should be wondering how others manage to get along in it, when the stupidity of his question was evident on its face. If you want to offend people, go ahead and be that kind of person. I tend to do my best to avoid that unless there is some greater truth that needs expressing, and such truths rarely come in the form of a joke. But I never once told you how to behave.

a) I know well of Han's quirky sense of humor. Before his comments, which surprised me, I told him so personally. They surprised me specifically because we had discussed this in real time for a couple of moments. b ) I was hardly the first person to use the analogy. And I didn't exactly use it regarding Han's post, I responded to Justin's "what's the big deal" with an explanation of what MIGHT be the big deal. But for those of you that don't see the relationship between these kinds of comments and the situation in the work place, I think it's probably because you wrongfully deny the systematized nature of the problem, perhaps not in word but certainly in belief.

Han, you can appreciate it as little or as much as you want. Whether or not I feel up to adding my thoughts on bridge threads I read, or just voting in the polls, or doing nothing but reading, has no bearing on this particular discussion. I don't mind admitting that I don't generally feel qualified to actively participate much in that type of discussion, but frankly that's none of your damned business. And it most certainly doesn't disqualify me here. There is sadly an attitude exhibited by many on these forums that being a bridge expert makes you an expert on anything that gets discussed here. People are deferred to when they shouldn't be because of bridge success. But this isn't a discussion about a hand or an auction. I will consider you my superior on bridge or mathematics, Han, but on anything else you'll have to prove yourself first, and the same goes for anyone here. So you won't run me out of this discussion that easily. And I won't defer to Jlall's "it's no big deal" posts just because it's jlall. If I think he's wrong and that it's important enough to say so point-blankly, I will. Until there's a post quota in the Bridge Discussion section before I'm allowed to post in the Water Cooler, your opinion on that issue is meaningless. If you had simply wanted to make light of an editing, you could have chosen anything to edit out. The fact is you went for a topic that you had been told bothered some people. So while it might have the effect that you want, it also has the effect I already pointed out: Namely, to repeat myself, it's a tacit acknowledgment that there are some that will find it offensive, while simultaneously proving that you don't care enough not to use it. You are taking advantage of your knowledge that someone was bothered to provide humor for others. I don't appreciate that.

I realize that I'm playing right into your point, but I consider your short-sightedness important enough to point out; your point is rather worthless. You should consider that perhaps the issue is that people are free to take seriously things here that in the real world they wish they could take seriously, but from which they are prohibited due to the negative repercussions they would face. I imagine many a woman in the workplace wishes they could remark on their co-workers comments regarding "growing some balls" or other statements like those, but they would be regarded as childishly as you are regarding this. In the workplace, they can not afford that disregard. Here, the regard of fellow posters on a web-forum is basically meaningless, so they can. I don't think the joke was all that big a deal, mostly because I don't believe Han meant anything malicious by it. But I do think it's a big deal that people express valid concerns and they are written off as though they are nothing. If there is a problem, it lies with this attitude you're expressing.

To put a light hearted spin on the matter. You may not think it effective, but that is what I thought when I read the post. But it's a tacit acknowledgment that there are some that will find it offensive, while simultaneously proving that you don't care enough not to use it. In fact, you're taking advantage of your knowledge that they'll be bothered to provide humor for others.

I don't know about the British "fetish for orthography," but the American fetish for standardized spelling, and differentiated from British spellings, precedes Victoria. It was basically single-handedly pushed for and enacted by Noah Webster, for whom our most famous dictionary is still named. He is solely responsible for why we removed the u from words like colour, which Cascade first referenced, and why we transposed the 're' in words like theatre, believing these changes reduced complexity.

Firing squad should work. :) I thought we were agreed that execution is not a deterrent!

I can't say I have ever heard anyone in the UK, describe something as low-class American, where did you get that snippet of fact from? It happens very often on the British show "QI: Quite Interesting" for instance. It's still a great show, I wish we had something like it in the US, but this is there nonetheless. Did you read the referenced urbandictionary entry? It's there. Read some more, you'll find comments like that all over the place. I'll grant that in this case it's crude kids, but they get the idea that expressions older than they are are "Americanisms" from somewhere. Check out the book I mentioned. This is an American reporting these claims, but I believe he gives references. And I have had people say such things talking to me.

It's been nearly 10 years since my roommate said to me, not at all joking, "what did we ever do without Google?" And it's only gotten more true.

Here's what I know of Adam from these forums: he is reasonable, careful in argument, clearly-spoken, and polite. You all know these things as well. It saddens me that you all are so quick to conclude that he's being a crackpot, when you know better of him. You know, conspiracies do exist. But even if this isn't a conspiracy (and I suspect it's not), that doesn't mean that there's not a subconscious (or unintentional) group effort (I suspect there is) to have the kinds of effects that Adam is disturbed by. Perhaps he is going a touch too far in the language he uses, but from this thread and others I would say that might have to do with frustration. It isn't easy to be young and play bridge competitively (time, money, etc etc), and at the very least all evidence suggests that the ACBL is doing absolutely nothing to make it easier, while simultaneously making it significantly more difficult where it suits their purposes (and has been argued rather effectively, to no good other effect). His basic argument is that he and others in his category are under-represented in the decision and policy making of the ACBL. Can you really say this isn't true? His conclusion is that all kinds of things happen because of this that have a negative effect on him and those in his category, that have less of a (or no) negative effect on members of other categories. Can you really say this isn't true? Let's be clear: the category distinction here is one of age. Ignore comments about conspiracy (note that that was not a term Adam used except in response), and just examine his points, the situation and it's effects. I think most people who would point blank call him wrong are being disingenuous.

I think this rule is an example of "low hanging fruit", i.e. doing something that's relatively easy to get started. The other proposals to deal with cheating require significantly more work and expense, such as having enough screens and duplicated boards for every table in the LM Pairs. The cellphone ban is just words on paper -- it's easy to make a rule that the players have to implement themselves. As has been said many times, it also has the BS effect of making it appear that you're taking valid steps, when you're not, while simultaneously extremely inconveniencing a population to the point of alienating them completely.

Now you remind me of something else. I don't know where you're from (AUS, I see from your BBO profile), but there is a whole host of terms that the British tend to think are "ghastly American expressions" that actually originated in the UK. Americans do not have the habit of saying these kinds of things about British (or perceived British) English, and I think it's a rather disgusting habit at that, made particularly more so by how often it's incorrect. For some amusing reading on the subject, check out: Made in America by Bill Bryson. He discusses a bunch of terms that have their origin in the UK but Brits insist are low-class American English. If you had clicked on what I first posted, you would realize that the term predates mass European settlement in the US by a couple of centuries. This is hardly a "ghastly American expression."

It's not just the opposite of the American English norm; it's a general although not strict rule that words get shorter but not longer. As for where it comes from, just some quick googling indicates that it's been around for many centuries. Although it should be noted that free etymology information on-line isn't quality, here's a link that's got some interesting and relevant information: anyways

The comparison to cars, while not perfect, is very relevant. Before the existence of cars, the world was set up to never have to travel miles across town in minutes, or hundreds of miles in a single day. Now that cars are widespread, failure to be able to meet these types of expectations will disqualify you for a job, mean that you never get to see children and grandchildren who are that much more likely to live far away, and just generally make life much more difficult for you than for everyone else around you (excepting certain select highly urban areas). More and more today we live in a world designed for cell phones. People with a right to place expectations on us (employers/clients/families) expect us to be able to respond within a couple of hours. Rather than being willing to pick a time and place to meet, friends expect to be able to say "just call me." Now that cell phones are widespread, failure to be able to meet these types of expectations will cause all kinds of problems similar to those of a lack of car (trouble with employers, inability to see friends and family), and just generally make life more difficult for you than it needs to be. Cell phones are more than a convenience, they have become the way of life for my entire generation, as well as huge numbers of people from preceding generations. It's the failure to recognize this fact that is causing so many people to respond with "what's the big deal?"

I can't say it would help me, but the ACBL might go some distance convincing some people of the necessity of this type of ban if they would reveal some significant evidence (names blacked out, whatever) that cell phones as a cheating tool are a significant method of cheating. Just getting Rick Beye and some other tournament directors to offer affidavits that they have presided over a relevant # of cell phone cheating cases could go a long way for some people.

I feel the need to add that I'm sickened by all the comments about whiny babies and children. If the younger people in this crowd were to start complaining about all the elderly that played bridge, both the playing against them and the logistics of having them in the event, you all would bitch-slap us with accusations of ageism so fast our heads would spin. But we make perfectly valid points about why we want to be able to carry cell phones and rather than bothering to recognize their validity you start using these derogatory terms.

There are many things here that are so inaccurate it's a waste to reply to them. But I'll bother cause I'm silly. re: real sporting events: sure, in most professional sports the players don't carry their phones, but you can bet that someone near Tiger can be reached in case of emergency, that LeBron's phone is no further away than his locker (which can be reached in a matter of seconds), and in the NFL they have phones right on the sidelines for the players (and still many carry theirs in their jerseys). these sports have real solutions to the problem. re: casinos, planes, and hospitals: planes and hospitals are a matter of safety, no one is talking of risking anyone's life by carrying a cell phone at a NABC. as for casinos, i don't frequent them but the last time i was in one, four years ago, there was no indication that i wasn't allowed to have my phone in my pocket...as for their use on the casino floor, well, not a single person in these threads has advocated being able to use their phone in the playing area, just being able to carry it. so none of these three situations are analogous. as regards security, joshs' post is great, but to put it more simply for those of you who couldn't follow: taping over the pinprick in your hot-air balloon won't mend the tear and prevent you from falling to your deaths.

Here's the clip, from youtube:

Which "not" is wrong, hidden: