Rate this decision.

[OleBerg]

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

[OleBerg]

As bad as your spelling of the simple English word "trump" <_<

It's my trademark. And artistic freedom. Just like calling a movie "Kalifornia". :)

[rogerclee]

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what?

[OleBerg]

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what?

No, I am calling the moderator silly, because that what I think he/she is.

[rogerclee]

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what?

No, I am calling the moderator silly, because that what I think he/she is.

How could you possibly think deleting your post was silly? You made a post that contained nothing in it except an expletive directed at another forum member. I mean, if you are really as smart as you think you are (apparently you are much smarter than me and gnasher!), then this shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

[cherdanno]

If you post a bad decision that you made, and don't appear to listen to the opinions of stronger players on this forum, then you shouldn't be surprised about about a patronizing comment.

 

FWIW, I thought this thread was a lot more tolerant to your 4♠ than I expected, and compared to what I think it deserved.

[OleBerg]

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what?

No, I am calling the moderator silly, because that what I think he/she is.

How could you possibly think deleting your post was silly? You made a post that contained nothing in it except an expletive directed at another forum member. I mean, if you are really as smart as you think you are (apparently you are much smarter than me and gnasher!), then this shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

You're completely of the mark.

 

The reason I read this forum and post here, is to try and learn something.

 

The reason I engage in a debate with you, Gnasher and others, is because I value your opinion. If I didn't value it, discussing with you would be a waste of time.

 

I don't post hands to promote a smart bid I made, or to get the upper hand in a discussion with partner. I post hands where I am genuinely in doubt as to what is right. And I go into the depht of the argument to learn something.

 

In this actual thread, I early admitted, that my viewpoint might very well be wrong, but I still wanted to discuss it. To learn.

 

Peachy on the other hand, did nothing but call me stupid in a patronizing fashion. So I returned in kind, only in a straightforward way.

[cherdanno]

Back to the bridge issue - as I said I am with Roger and Andy. Some of the arguments in favor of 4♠ seem to assume that opponents will always find a club lead when that is right (including of course Phil's simulation). Basically I think that when partner has 3 clubs, we will hardly ever be better off in 4S than in 3N, and when he has a doubleton they still have to find the club lead. (Even when he has ♣xx the odds of defenders taking the first 5 club tricks is less than 50%.)

[OleBerg]

If you post a bad decision that you made, and don't appear to listen to the opinions of stronger players on this forum, then you shouldn't be surprised about about a patronizing comment.

 

FWIW, I thought this thread was a lot more tolerant to your 4♠ than I expected, and compared to what I think it deserved.

 

I do indeed listen, but I do not consider this forum a competition, where the object is to post hands the good players will agree with me on.

 

And I believe you learn more from discussing, and using arguments, instead of establishing a hieracy, where the strongest players simply tells the others what is right.

 

(The strong players might learn something too, as they have to formulate their reasons, which will give them more insight. And newcomers might learn not to bid like me.)

 

And I value when Gnasher and others take their time to argue with me. And having made this effort, their patience with me will eventually earn them the right to make a patronizing comment, when they finally tire of me.

 

But Peachy, whose posts are worthless, shouldn't really make that kind of comments.

[Fluffy]

worthless to you doesn't mean worthless to everyone. IMO for someone who just wants to learn etc, you got very hearted on a simple remark.

 

for example, peachy thinks my posts are worthless, but that doesn't stop me from posting them <_<

[cherdanno]

Your comments aren't any less patronizing. They are saying "peachy cannot judge whether gnasher is right or I am right". The difference (aside from not having any bridge-related content, which peachy's post has, and the fact that peachy wsa right) is that you add some insults along the way.

[inquiry]

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what?

No, I am calling the moderator silly, because that what I think he/she is.

How could you possibly think deleting your post was silly? You made a post that contained nothing in it except an expletive directed at another forum member. I mean, if you are really as smart as you think you are (apparently you are much smarter than me and gnasher!), then this shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

First, it should not be a surprise which moderator deleted your post, since I posted in the moderation thread that I did it, and stated why.

 

Second, you can not be serious when comparing peachy's offer that you should listen to the comment of two other players. In effect, she was saying she agreed with their view, and suggesting you might reflect on that. We frequently post that we agree with an earlier post without restating the points. The fact that you find her comments patronizing boggles my mind.

 

Third, rather hers was patronizing or not, it did not VIOLATE the rules of this site. Yours, on the other hand VIOLATED the rules, and your, er, unique spelling of the "f-word" showed you knew it was against the Rules and you simply didn't care that you violated the site rules. In fact, you took great care to do just that.

 

The fact that you call me "silly" is, I guess yet another violation of the rules, the smarter people on the forum would have said "which moderator made the silly decision to delete my post"... because they realize that stating the decison was silly not the person. Phrased that way, they would not VIOLATE the rules of this site and still express their view on the issue.

 

So I will say that your comments to peachy and your calling the moderator (in this case, me) silly were both stupid, idiotic things to state on a moderated public forum (note: stupid idiotic action, not person). Of course, my correction and why it was made it here for others to read, when I overstep the bounds of moderating, I hear about it from a lot of members. So far, only your post complains, and I think your complaint is way off base.

 

BTW, you should listen to rogerclee and gnasher, since their views make so much sense. ^_^

[peachy]

Peachy on the other hand, did nothing but call me stupid in a patronizing fashion. So I returned in kind, only in a straightforward way.

For the record, I did no such thing nor meant what I said in that way at all.

I was not aware that you knew that gnasher and rogerclee (among a few others) are experts who know what they are saying; I got that impression from the posts I read.

 

You are free to say my posts worthless if that is your opinion but saying that is no way to conduct a reasoned discussion. Nor is using the foul insult (now deleted).

[OleBerg]

Your comments aren't any less patronizing.

Indeed. They are probably more patronizing, on purpose. She made the patronizing comment for no other appearent reason. I made a rougher comment. Just because she makes the first insult, doesn't give her the right to say, that her level of insult is the limit.

They are saying "peachy cannot judge whether gnasher is right or I am right".

To bad. It was meant as a general insult.

 

The difference (aside from not having any bridge-related content, which peachy's post has, and the fact that peachy wsa right) is that you add some insults along the way.

It may have had some bridgerelated content, but it was still patronizing. If she wanted to say she agreed with Clee and Gnasher, she could simply have done that. The fact that she appearently doesn't even see her own comment as patronizing, is just another sign of arrogance.

 

And again, my aim is not to be right, my aim is to learn. And being "right" should not give the right to insult people who are of another opinion, as long as they debate in a sober way. When I am wrong, I do not deliberately make mistakes to bother other people, I do it because of lack of insight.

[OleBerg]

First, it should not be a surprise which moderator deleted your post, since I posted in the moderation thread that I did it, and stated why.

 

Second, you can not be serious when comparing peachy's offer that you should listen to the comment of two other players. In effect, she was saying she agreed with their view, and suggesting you might reflect on that. We frequently post that we agree with an earlier post without restating the points. The fact that you find her comments patronizing boggles my mind.

Since I have a great deal of respect for people who make the effort to run places like this, I'll try to explain:

 

If you agree with someone, it is simply enough to say that you agree. The phrase "They offer you common sense" clearly suggests, that it is a thing I do not have. (Not that it bothers me a lot, "common sense" is overrated.) But it is still an insult.

 

Now, if like Gnasher, Clee and others, you have made an effort to explain it to me, it is ok if you tire of me and my questions and comments.

 

Peachy's last comment, on the other hand, apart from being insulting, also support the paradigm: "The good players are right, and the less good players should listen and learn". And it didn't add an ounce of insight to the thread. That is not my idée of what a forum is best for; forums such as this is an excellent tool for mutual learning. And the very good players will automaticly learn something from the less good players too. Many reasons for that. Some are:

 

- As already stated, it forces them to formulate their arguments. This may lead to new insight

- Even if only 1 in 20 of a weaker players idées is even worth considering, it will still sharpen the experts game.

- The training in using argument will be handy, when the expert is going to discuss with his equals or peers.

- It encourages young talented people to speak their mind. (Which I consider a good thing.)

- Less good players may have knowledge of what other good players have written earlier.

- Once in a blue moon, the less good player has actually figured something out, the good players have overlooked.

 

Now, finally getting to the point:

 

Peachy insulted me, maybe without knowing. I insulted back thinking it was an easy way to illustrate that. I was wrong; it seems quite a few of you didn't get the message.

 

Third, rather hers was patronizing or not, it did not VIOLATE the rules of this site. Yours, on the other hand VIOLATED the rules, and your, er, unique spelling of the "f-word" showed you knew it was against the Rules and you simply didn't care that you violated the site rules. In fact, you took great care to do just that.

Not really, I was just out to insult Peachy. (I havent read the rules.) The misspelling was simply an attempt to "lessen" the insult, also hinting that there was something else to the post.

 

The fact that you call me "silly" is, I guess yet another violation of the rules, the smarter people on the forum would have said "which moderator made the silly decision to delete my post"... because they realize that stating the decison was silly not the person. Phrased that way, they would not VIOLATE the rules of this site and still express their view on the issue.

You're right of course. A semantic hick-up, and a rather embarrasing one. I should have noticed. Sorry.

[OleBerg]

FWIW, I thought this thread was a lot more tolerant to your 4♠ than I expected, and compared to what I think it deserved.

I think my posts deserve what most posts here deserve*:

 

Serious comments. My posts, and others, generally get that. And from strong players. That is what makes this place a great forum for learning (for me at least).

 

That was also the main reason for my retaliation against Peachy: Her insult is detrimental to this learning. (For reasons stated in other posts.) If I simply had wanted to insult back, only to get revenge, I can assure you I could have found a subtle, sarcastic way to do it.

 

Now, if you look at Clee's and Gnashers posts in this thread, you might analyze their language and find it slightly patronizing too. But they have offered advice, and the (maybe) patronizing language sends the message: "We feel strongly that we are right". This is usefull information. And as they generally offer advice I find valuable, the sligth (possible) patronization is well worth the price.

 

*Quote, can't remeber whom: "The loser of a discussion is actually the winner, as it is he who has learnt most".

[gwnn]

most people know what the advantages and the disadvantages of 4S are. when they say "i see no reason for 4S" it does not mean "i think there is no possible reason for bidding 4S, it will never work", it means "i can't see why 4S is not clearly inferior to 3NT from the point of view of its expected value". everyone sees that you have T9x in clubs and all, but (almost) everyone said that 3NT is much better than 4S.

[OleBerg]

most people know what the advantages and the disadvantages of 4S are. when they say "i see no reason for 4S" it does not mean "i think there is no possible reason for bidding 4S, it will never work", it means "i can't see why 4S is not clearly inferior to 3NT from the point of view of its expected value". everyone sees that you have T9x in clubs and all, but (almost) everyone said that 3NT is much better than 4S.

Yes, and I appriciate the input, in this thread and others. I sometimes mention this, but I would find it silly to express this appriciation everytime someone replies to my posts.