VMars

I saw my movie today. It was pretty good. I recommend it to all my fans.

I haven't started a poll in a while. You are playing teams (IMPs), and you are red vs white. [hv=pc=n&e=saq8ha8da654ct987&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d3cdp]133|200|What do you bid, and why?[/hv]

Yeay me!

They should extend this investigation to the people that supervised Dorner (a former cop/navy reservist).

That's pretty awful. In all my classes, profs were required to have a syllabus with the grading policy and weights listed, so at least we had warning about attendance quizzes. To bring this back to more related (albeit perhaps still tangential) topic: I really get frustrated when people display blatant hypocrisy, and don't recognize it as such. I had a person in my cohort who spent most of his time in class on facebook or playing games. Recently, he posted a complaint about his students posting on facebook, and how they were so disrespectful. One of the things that turned me off of organized religion was this "do as I say but don't examine what I do" theme.

I want (fill in the blank). I am going to buy it unless you want to get it for my birthday. I tend to be very specific with what I want (especially if it's expensive) because I do not want my SO to spend a lot of money (which to me is $50+, to him it seems to be more) on something I won't love and don't at least somewhat need. I don't really need to be surprised.

Honestly, all women are different. When I say I don't want presents, it means that I do not want presents, and you won't be getting any from me. But I do think that you should know what your wife means by "I don't want presents".

This seemed to be a double-post. Sorry. I will add that I think that you may be missing the "a" part of "atheist". Also, everyone uses their own judgements as to morality. Others just cloak their judgements by claiming it matches something given from on-high, but they still have to judge if it fits.

By saying that you judge something as harmless it implies that you are JUDGING it. I also think that I was being too subtle: It's atheism (the "i" is part of the "-ism" or "ist", not part of the "athe").

I think that this is less straightforward than you seem to think, as what I was taught is that the commandment says "Thou shalt not murder". Murder is not the same thing as kill. Maybe you liken "athiesm" to that, but as an atheist, I feel rather amused by that statement. I'm glad that you condescend to find my beliefs harmless, but puzzled as to why you liken non-belief in a god to a self-centered belief in a god?

Go further than the Dream Act, which not only affects people that were brought here as children, it also caps it at 30. I don't see why it needs to be capped at all.

I was annoyed that I wasn't given the choice of taxing capital gains as income (I at least would have liked to know by how much that would affect the budget - if at all).

I just say "hello" and ask them which one of them is "Sarah"? I actually don't know if I'm unpopular because of calling the director. It's more that at nationals, many people that I knew and am friends with would walk right by me when I said "hello" to them.

Maybe it should be a requirement if people want to use the "Find me a Table", or other partnership pairing tools, but I don't see why I, who does not use these tools, should be required to have a rating. And if I were willing to have a table filled with random players, I would much rather know about their affability than about their rating. I recently played on a team with someone who was so extremely rude I refused to sit at the table during the comparisons. I would rather have had a beginner on the team than have had to be around him.

When you go to a tournament or club, people aren't required to list their skill level on their cc. Why should BBO require it? And yes, ACBL requires full names (first + last) on CCs. Want to know how many people I saw in a national event who did not comply with that? My favorite is when they hand me a card that says "Sarah Beth", and I'm looking at two gentlemen. I usually ask about it, to make sure that I'm looking at the correct CC. I could make myself even less popular than I am by calling the director about it, but I already have enough people who don't like me.

As others said, see what expert people in your area play (but I have a different reason). It may not tell you what system is "best" (I know very good players who play either one or neither), but you'll be better able to get good answers to bidding questions from your local experts if you are playing the same system that they are used to. I see a lot of beginners start with Standard American, and ask a local "expert" what they should have bid, and get a technically wrong answer, because these experts don't really know SA, they know 2/1.

Some clubs may not have boards numbered high enough for having all people in one section. We have sets of 36 boards so when we have 18.5+ tables, we HAVE to go to two sections. And then sometimes someone doesn't show up, so we have two nine table sections. And yes, there are movements that use two sets of boards in one big movement. If you can trust players to move boards correctly, this is feasible but if you don't, then you can't do this.

I don't disagree with you about theory, but many clubs around here do that so that if a board is misduplicated or fouled in some other way, only one section is affected.

I would usually wait a while to vote, so that my vote doesn't skew the results, but after a few days it gets annoying to keep pressing "show results" to see the results, and so I vote for what I did at the table.

Why is no one mentioning Mary Tyler Moore? (Or the Dick van Dyke show if you prefer?) I second the mentions of Married with Children, Keeping Up Appearances, and Are You Being Served? Roseanne was hilarious for much of its run, but the last season (or two) was pretty bad, and kind of drags the whole show down. Big Bang Theory is awful. Anyway, I also agree with those that said that this list is a joke, put on by a no-name website. It probably is one of those sites made just to draw clicks and get ad dollars.

My spouse is of the opposite gender. Why should I have the right to have all my rights transferable from state-to-state, and other people who are married to someone of the same gender not have his/her rights transferable? You say these facts. I agree that this is what is happening now. My point is that this is actually a BAD thing, and a reason it should not be left to states because then some states will be allowed to discriminate. So before we had the constitutional amendment, it was okay? And constitutional amendments happen in a vacuum? No more should ever be made?

The difference between your first example and your second is that states are expected to recognize marriages performed by other states. If not, am I suddenly single when I leave one state and move to another? Also, there are federal "benefits" to being married (I put benefits in quotes, because they are not all necessarily monetary or recognized as benefits by all, such as being able to file taxes jointly). I (and perhaps many people) view marriage as a civil right, and I do not believe that civil rights can be left to the states to decide on. Your argument could be extended to slavery too. Should states be able to decide for themselves if slavery is legal? And I agree with you that abortion could fall under the same argument: it should not be up to the states to decide on what rights women have over their own bodies. We seem to disagree what stance the federal government should take.

This may be a question more for PassedOut, but I don't really understand why people aren't screaming more about Romney's proposed cap on deductions. Even if it's $17,000 (the smallest number I've heard), this wouldn't affect me personally, but it would raise taxes on some of my married friends who earn more than I do, and have more deductions. But what I'm really confused by is wouldn't this be disastrous for businesses who file taxes as individuals (what the Republicans categorize as "small businesses")? I mean, if I had profits of $300,000, and costs of $150,000, I would be making a decent profit as a business. But I thought that I would file as if I made $300,000 and had $150,000 of deductions. Is that not true? Because if it's true, then this proposal is EXTREMELY anti-business. Of course, I could incorporate and file as a business, but this involves a big cost, and anyway I thought that the Republicans wanted to protect the individual-filer business.

(I edited to only display the points to which I wanted to reply) I think that point is not that Ryan said it was "bad policy" to try to stimulate the economy through government support. If that's what he was accused of saying, I would agree that the criticism against it holds no water. I think that the point of the attack is a claim that Ryan said to a nationwide audience that the stimulus was "bad policy" because it wouldn't work (i.e. WON'T stimulate the economy or be helpful), but then requested money for Wisconsin, claiming that it would help his district (i.e. it WOULD stimulate the economy).

Lover seems most fitting. Sponsor. Ron. Significant Other (I usually say "SO"). Bill-payer