beaten in a fun game

[arrows]

I was beaten, badly, in bbo league team today. But that doesn't stop me sharing

my fun with other people.

 

**characters:

--arrows: an hardheaded troublemaker

--ruxi: arrows' partner

--uhv2cntHCP: one of the RESPECTFUL opponents

 

uhv2cntHCP: hi opps what system and leads?

ruxi: we play 2/1

uhv2cntHCP: leads?

arrows: 3/5 suit

arrows: 4 NT

arrows: std carding

arrows: o/e 1st disc

uhv2cntHCP: which card = encouarage?

(obviously, not everyone is well-informed what "standard" means)

ruxi: high

uhv2cntHCP: we play Polish club and udca

(but one is assumed to be well-informed what Polish club and udca means)

 

(ruxi opened 1♥, arrows raised 2♥, which obviously he shouldn't have done,

because it's about to drag him into soup again. uhv2cntHCP doubled, ruxi

followed with 3♥, pass, pass, ?)

 

(and here we go again)

 

uhv2cntHCP: 2h what hcp range?

->uhv2cntHCP: below invitational

uhv2cntHCP: range

->uhv2cntHCP: below invitational

uhv2cntHCP: what is below below 10 bleow 7 below 5?

->uhv2cntHCP: below 10

uhv2cntHCP: and above? 3 /5 /7 I need to know that

->uhv2cntHCP: above 0

uhv2cntHCP: 0-9 ??!!

->uhv2cntHCP: yes

(Bingo!)

 

(Look, I know you have a decision to make over 3♥, and you are consulting me,

(Have you paid me for this?). asking how many HCP I had, and I would

be hold responsible for whatever you were going to screw up. I am smarter than

that (and giggling) . Finally, uhv2cntHCP doubled again, and his partner bid 4D

and allowed to play there.)

 

uhv2cntHCP: look opps i have to know same as u

(cannot agree more, we know no more than you, honestly, we don't know what

Polish club is and have little idea about UDCA. But I can see that you are

knowledgeable not only in poslish club but also in 2/1. oh, maybe a little bit

rusty on std carding method.)

 

uhv2cntHCP: if 2h can be 0 hcp u must alert this

(I don't know, I am not a director and will never be qualified, coz I don't know

how to count HCP very well, I suppose that's the very basic requirement)

 

uhv2cntHCP: raise with 0hcp it is not standard

uhv2cntHCP: if 2h =0-9 how can the opener knows what to do later on ?? etc

uhv2cntHCP: moment

(kept bugging us when we were defending (and we misdefended), until the

hand is over, and the auction of next hand started)

 

uhv2cntHCP: can u tell me what is in your syst 1d/h/s - 2d/h.s?

arrows: look, not everybody use HCP evaluate their hand, I could have raise with

xx xxxxx xx xxxx

 

(Damn, I am giving free lecture again! the good thing is this time, i skipped the

"Jesus sake" part, coz I found it's not appealing, and my pray never got answered)

 

uhv2cntHCP: u play 2/1 right?

arrows: yes 2/1 GF

uhv2cntHCP: u play 2/1

uhv2cntHCP: so if u bid not standard way u have to alert

arrows: this is standard, 1H-2H below invitation, as I told you

(correct me if I am wrong)

uhv2cntHCP: so if the opener has lets say 17hcp and 2 h= 0-9 how u can find out what to do?

ruxi: pd, i wonder whether the friend is suggesting we should improve our bidding before coming to bbo?

->uhv2cntHCP: he bid on with strength, like everyone else does

 

(Thanks God, because there's no director to call, we are moving on....)

[arrows]

Post Mortem:

 

One of my professor always says : " Don't be afraid to ask a question,

there's no stupid questions, there's only stupid answers." And I have been

always wondering why.

Now I know it! because asking rediculous questions is imperative for

winning bridge! And I will try it more and more to improve my bridge and

make everyone happier at the same time.

[uday]

If your attitude is that you are unwilling to provide full and complete explanations on request, you should probably open your own table, and, before allowing people to sit, explain the rules of your game.

 

Then, no one will care that you don't use HCP, or whatever stops you from saying, when someone asks what 2H means

 

"0-9 , at least 3 hearts."

 

Of course, this is an unworkable range, and a more accurate answer for most people would be

 

"usually 6-9 HCP with 3 or 4 trump."

or , as with the methods I usually use

 

"6-10 HCP with exactly 3 trumps. If absolute max, will be flat"

 

"Standard" is not an acceptable answer even in the limited world of the ACBL. On BBO, where people come from all over, "Standard" is even less acceptable, because what is standard for A is not standard for B.

 

If you choose not to use HCP for your hand evaluation, you still have to find a way to express your hand in terms the opponents understand.

 

Just because you and your partner use the (Janex) 49-1-2-3 scale, for instance, and choose to call spades "golvers", hearts "shotas", diamonds "gambins", and clubs "kores" doesnt mean that when you bid 1H-2H and they inquire about 2H, you can say

 

It shows 3+ shotas and 52-53 Janex points but no more thant 3 golvers unless I have equal length in kores and gambins with exactly 54 Janex points (in which case I might only have 2 shotas)

 

That is not good enough.

 

I work here. I am tolerant of deviations from the norm unless the deviations adversely affect the quality of life of ordinary bridge players. if this is a typical interaction with an opponent, I thiink you would be happier with set games where everyone knew what to expect (or not to expect) from you and your P.

[MickyB]

arrows: std carding

arrows: o/e 1st disc

uhv2cntHCP: which card = encouarage?

(obviously, not everyone is well-informed what "standard" means)

ruxi: high

uhv2cntHCP: we play Polish club and udca

(but one is assumed to be well-informed what Polish club and udca means)

Are you sure your opponent wasn't asking about the particulars of odd/even discards? There is nothing to prevent you from asking what Polish Club or UDCA is if you are unsure.

 

I understand your not wanting to rely on HCP for evaluating your hand, but for ease of explaining your agreements it would be useful to understand the method. Alternatively, something like 'may have 5♥ and no high cards; If only 3♥ then three queens or one ace would be a minimum' would provide excellent disclosure, but would obviously slow the game down. This assumes you are playing with a partner who will know what hands you will raise on, either due to discussion or experience; If not, your opponent is not entitled to this information. Not that many people on BBO realise this, of course.

 

I know of no alert regulations that require a raise that could be on 0 HCP to be alerted.

[arrows]

If your attitude is that you are unwilling to provide full and complete explanations on request, you should probably open your own table, and, before allowing people to sit, explain the rules of your game.

 

I was asked particularly about my strength of 2♥ bid, that's why specifically

only answered "below invitation", and I think (maybe wrong) it makes sense

intuitively.

 

"0-9 , at least 3 hearts."

Of course, this is an unworkable range,

 

In my humble opinion, I found it extremely difficult to predict what

methods going to work, and what not in bridge.

50 years ago, If I were going to use a method that 2♥ open can

be either ♥ or ♠, or I open preempt with 4-4 assuming-fit, I would

have been deemed as lunatic or idiot, but today if adopt these methods, people

will think I am fashionable.

 

"Standard" is not an acceptable answer even in the limited world of the ACBL. On BBO, where people come from all over, "Standard" is even less acceptable, because what is standard for A is not standard for B.

 

Absolutely agree. But I wonder if "standard"is not acceptable, How am I supposed

to interpret "it's not standard", which one of my respectful opps kept telling

(teaching?) me?

[arrows]

I work here. I am tolerant of deviations from the norm unless the deviations adversely affect the quality of life of ordinary bridge players. if this is a typical interaction with an opponent, I thiink you would be happier with set games where everyone knew what to expect (or not to expect) from you and your P.

 

When Mr. Matty Bergen said "Points, Schmoints", which , as I understand it

(maybe very wrong), is euphemism of "HCP counters are idiots", I see no

evidence found so far (but it always possible in the future), that he had

made adversely effect on the quality of life of ordinary bridge players,

by addressing a much larger bridge community with such drastic words.

 

I haven't even gone that far, I am just saying counting HCP is not for me and

I don't like it. And I only descibe it as "ridiculous". Is it safe for me to

assume that won't affect the quality of life of nobody, or even it will, it's

neglectable?

[hrothgar]

Comment the first: There is nothing wrong with using a metric other than Milton Work type HCP to evaluate your bidding.

 

Comment the second: The asinine little games that you are playing are a disgrace. You seem to be going out of your way to avoid providing the opponents with any kind of useful information. If you are using an alternative hand evalution metric, name the metric and define the range for your bids. For example, if you are using losing trick count, you might describe the 2♥ raise as showing "9 losers" or some such.

 

I readily admit that its possible that your "judgement" is too complex to be summarized in a "simple" metric or is based on some very obscure criteria. In this case, the best course of action is approximate using some well know metric. For example, playing MOSCITO, I alert that our constructive opening bids show approximately ~9-14 HCP. There is a lot more going on under the hood, however, this is a good first pass.

 

For whatever reason, you seem to delight in obeying the spirit of the law while perverting its spirit. Case in point: describing your raise as showing 0+ HCP. I've seen lots of people play the same game. However, they normally grow out of this sort of behaviour once they pass the age of 17 or so...

[luke warm]

bergen never said hcp are for idiots... as a matter of fact, he uses hcp in his bergen raises, as a way to differentiate between the raises... the thrust of points schmoints wasn't that hcp are useless, but that there are other factors that enter into the judgment of a hand (such as fit, distribution, etc)... in any event, if an op asks about a bid they simply want to know what your partner expects you to have for that bid... what agreements you have, iow...

 

most people who play 2/1 use the 2h response to 1h as showing 8, 9 hcp with exactly 3 pieces, prefering to bid a forcing nt with a weaker 3 (or 2) pc raise, and a jump after opener's rebid to show a limit raise with 3 pcs (1h/1nt/2any/3h)

[Fluffy]

Just to note, on standard 2/1 2♥ is below invitational, but above trash, since you are able to bid 1NT and then 2♥ to show a very bad support.

[Cowology]

arrows, if you were ever at my table I would boot you. You're behavior is completely unacceptable and the fact that you are flaunting it sickens me. This is not the first time you've gone out of your way to ridicule a player at your table. You've already been warned about using players names in such a context, but the irony is that in your attempt to humiliate someone else you've only succeeded in making yourself look like a fool. Please, no more "transcripts" from your tables. If you absolutely can't control your juvenile impulse to mock other players then do so privately and spare us all your xxxxxxx and xxxx xxxx antics. Edited January 16, 2005 by inquiry

[arrows]

Welcome to the BridgeBase Forums! Before beginning to use our service, we ask that you read over our Terms of Service. To most people this should not be of tremendous concern but it is worth reviewing. By establishing an account with the BridgeBase Forums (BBF) you agree that:

 

1. You will not engage in conduct or post any material that is defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law. Doing any of these is a good way to find yourself barred from the forums. The board should never go above PG-rated for any reason.

[arrows]

arrows, if you were ever at my table I would boot you. You're behavior is completely unacceptable and the fact that you are flaunting it sickens me. This is not the first time you've gone out of your way to ridicule a player at your table. You've already been warned about using players names in such a context, but the irony is that in your attempt to humiliate someone else you've only succeeded in making yourself look like a fool. Please, no more "transcripts" from your tables. If you absolutely can't control your juvenile impulse to mock other players then do so privately and spare us all your pompous and condescending antics

 

Cowology:

 

Let me remind you:

 

First of all, you are not God, or any sort of representive of God.

You have no right to judge other people in term of ethic in public.

 

Second, you are not in a position to judge whether other person's behavior

is acceptable here in this forum or bbo, since you are not administrator

here(correct me if I am wrong)

 

And you have cross the line by calling me a fool. But I can forgive you,

since there's overwhelming evidence indicating that you are not intelligent

enough to identify "uhv2cntHCP" is a fake name in my story, I riduculed

nobody.

[inquiry]

1.  You will not engage in conduct or post any material that is defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law.  Doing any of these is a good way to find yourself barred from the forums.  The board should never go above PG-rated for any reason.

Hi arrows.

 

It is up to the adminstrators to deal wtih people who violate the rules. So let's see how cowology did.

 

arrows, if you were ever at my table I would boot you. You're behavior is completely unacceptable and the fact that you are flaunting it sickens me.

 

This is a statement of "fact" as cowology sees it based upon your actions. What cow is saying is your actions (not you but your actions) are unacceptable. I happen to agree that your actions at the table in this thread and the other one are both unacceptable and outside the bounds of the game. Like cowology, I would not want you at my table, since I consider your actions unethical. However, I wouldn't boot you, I would just open another table, and require permission to join, and you would not be given permission. Here Cow finds your fluanting your unethical behavior sickening. I just find it disappointing that in light of responses by fred, uday, me and others trying to clarify your responsibilities, you still can't get it.

 

This is not the first time you've gone out of your way to ridicule a player at your table. You've already been warned about using players names in such a context, but the irony is that in your attempt to humiliate someone else you've only succeeded in making yourself look like a fool.

 

Well.. this seems more or less true to me, it certainly doesn't make you look good. We don't generally allow people to post attacks on other people who are not here to defend themselves. For one thing, we only hear one side of an arguement. For another, even with transcripts, someone may post only part of the transcript or even "false" transcripts. However, in my opinion, the transcripts you post have not made the other people look bad,, and in fact, since your view is wrong, cowology has it right, the person looking bad seems to be you.

 

Please, no more "transcripts" from your tables. If you absolutely can't control your juvenile impulse to mock other players then do so privately and spare us all your xxxxxxx   and xxxxxxxx  antics.

 

Ok, here cow steps over the line a little bit at the end.

 

I think I will try once more to explain your responsibility to your opponents when they question a bid you make. It is your responsibility to explain completetly, and in as much detail as you can, what your partnership agreement is for your bid. If you have specific agreement, give all the details. If you have general agreement, give general agreement. If you have absolutely no agreement (and this auction has never occurred with this partner before), then explain that you have no agreement.

 

To say 0+ hcp is useless, don't waste your opponents with that. But if the bidding goes.. 1H-DBL-2H and htey ask aobut your 2H bid, if your agreement is less than 8 hcp and three card support, if you liek, say 0-8 hcp with 3 card support. If your agreement is You don;t use hcp? Fine, what is your agreement for a raise in this situaion? three card suport? 2 or 4 card support? 9 losers? 9 losers? 2 cover cards? 1.5 cover card? whatever your agreement is explain it. Maybe your agreement is this is a preemptive raise,. very weak, with no specific other agreement.. then alert taht "weak preemptive raise".. when pressed, say that is the extent of our agreement.

 

But to agree with Richard (hgorthar), you seem to be going out of your way to avoid providing the opponents with any kind of useful information. Sorry, this is not what bridge is about... if you want to do that, go down to the coffeehouse to play.

 

Ben

[Free]

Arrows, I would be careful with the words "correct me if I'm wrong", since the first time you used them in this thread, you have to be corrected for sure. In 2/1, 1M-2M shows a constructive raise below invitational values, something like 8-10HCP. With weaker support you go through a forcing 1NT, so your explanation of 2/1, standard and 0-9hcp is plain wrong.

 

I understand it's hard to explain certain stuff exactly (2 weeks ago I had to explain SlamPoints to some beginner old ladies, and they didn't understand it, even while it's quite simple), but at least you can give some propper explanation and use the words "normally" and "around". It seems you just want to rebelize the table by deliberatly keeping information behind.

You have 2 possibilities: either you give a decent explanation which isn't exactly like your system tells you but which is easy understandable, OR you give the full and difficult explanation until your opponents understand it good enough. I suggest you do the first thing, and if it comes accross, give the full explanation.

 

You complain about "one is assumed to be well-informed what Polish club and udca means", but you assume other players know what 2/1 means... For Polish players, polish club is a standard system, while 2/1 is something weird. Sometimes it can help to look at the situation from the other side as well.

 

I don't understand the reason why you want to post your table-stories anyway, it seems you come out as the bad guy every time :( and it has nothing to do with the cards or the game, but with behaviour...

[arrows]

We generally don't play 1NT forcing for garbage raise.

 

If we bid 1NT and rebid partner's major at 2 level, that is

a preference without any other suitable bid, the expectation is

we don't have 3 card support.

 

So, with support , we raise first, regardless the strength.

[hrothgar]

We generally don't play 1NT forcing for garbage raise.

 

If we bid 1NT and rebid partner's major at 2 level, that is

a preference without any other suitable bid,  the expectation is 

we don't have 3 card support.

 

So, with support , we raise first, regardless the strength.

Seems unplayable if combined with a 0-8 HCP range

 

How do you make an intelligent decision regarding when bid game/explore for game?

 

Can partner ever double for penalties if the opponents balance?

[Free]

We generally don't play 1NT forcing for garbage raise.

 

If we bid 1NT and rebid partner's major at 2 level, that is

a preference without any other suitable bid, the expectation is

we don't have 3 card support.

 

So, with support , we raise first, regardless the strength.

Then you should prealert as "modified 2/1", since this isn't standard...

[arrows]

I just post part of the rule here, have no intention to make an assuming

judgement.

 

I can be a bad person and mean. I may be deemed as unethical.

But I have my own sense of conscience, one of them is that I don't use

bad words to address a paritcular party involved in the discussion,

and I expect the same to me.

 

Otherwise, I will have a feeling that the administrator here is reluctant to

enforce the rule against whom they are rooting for.

[Cowology]

Ok, here cow steps over the line a little bit at the end.

Yeah, I kinda new that was coming when I posted it LOL. Sorry. :D It just infuriates me to see somebody try and pervert the spirit of the game, then gloat about how magnificently they did it. I actually thought I showed a fair ammount of restraint in my comments. :huh:

[han]

(I don't know, I am not a director and will never be qualified, coz I don't know

how to count HCP very well, I suppose that's the very basic requirement)

Pay careful attention, here are the basics:

 

A = 4,

K = 3,

Q = 2,

J = 1.

 

The sum of all the points is your HCP.

 

If you and your partner don't want to use these points to evaluate your hands, good for you! However, most bridge players do use these points to describe their conventions. When asked about a bid, you should try to be as helpful as possible to your opponents. A first step would be to learn HCP, and try to give some ranges for your bids (as you are using different ways of hand evaluation, use "approximately" or "about"). And if you suspect that your bid is uncommon (as your way of playing 1H-2H) then you should alert it and inform the opponents about your meaning even before they ask.

 

If you are not sure if your way of playing 1H-2H is common or not, then you also better alert it, it can't hurt.

[junyi_zhu]

I was beaten, badly, in bbo league team today. But that doesn't stop me sharing

my fun with other people.

 

**characters:

--arrows: an hardheaded troublemaker

--ruxi: arrows' partner

--uhv2cntHCP: one of the RESPECTFUL opponents

 

uhv2cntHCP: hi opps what system and leads?

ruxi: we play 2/1

uhv2cntHCP: leads?

arrows: 3/5 suit

arrows: 4 NT

arrows: std carding

arrows: o/e 1st disc

uhv2cntHCP: which card = encouarage?

(obviously, not everyone is well-informed what "standard" means)

ruxi: high

uhv2cntHCP: we play Polish club and udca

(but one is assumed to be well-informed what Polish club and udca means)

 

(ruxi opened 1♥, arrows raised 2♥, which obviously he shouldn't have done,

because it's about to drag him into soup again. uhv2cntHCP doubled, ruxi

followed with 3♥, pass, pass, ?)

 

(and here we go again)

 

uhv2cntHCP: 2h what hcp range?

->uhv2cntHCP: below invitational

uhv2cntHCP: range

->uhv2cntHCP: below invitational

uhv2cntHCP: what is below below 10 bleow 7 below 5?

->uhv2cntHCP: below 10

uhv2cntHCP: and above? 3 /5 /7 I need to know that

->uhv2cntHCP: above 0

uhv2cntHCP: 0-9 ??!!

->uhv2cntHCP: yes

(Bingo!)

 

(Look, I know you have a decision to make over 3♥, and you are consulting me,

(Have you paid me for this?). asking how many HCP I had, and I would

be hold responsible for whatever you were going to screw up. I am smarter than

that (and giggling) . Finally, uhv2cntHCP doubled again, and his partner bid 4D

and allowed to play there.)

 

uhv2cntHCP: look opps i have to know same as u

(cannot agree more, we know no more than you, honestly, we don't know what

Polish club is and have little idea about UDCA. But I can see that you are

knowledgeable not only in poslish club but also in 2/1. oh, maybe a little bit

rusty on std carding method.)

 

uhv2cntHCP: if 2h can be 0 hcp u must alert this

(I don't know, I am not a director and will never be qualified, coz I don't know

how to count HCP very well, I suppose that's the very basic requirement)

 

uhv2cntHCP: raise with 0hcp it is not standard

uhv2cntHCP: if 2h =0-9 how can the opener knows what to do later on ?? etc

uhv2cntHCP: moment

(kept bugging us when we were defending (and we misdefended), until the

hand is over, and the auction of next hand started)

 

uhv2cntHCP: can u tell me what is in your syst 1d/h/s - 2d/h.s?

arrows: look, not everybody use HCP evaluate their hand, I could have raise with

xx xxxxx xx xxxx

 

(Damn, I am giving free lecture again! the good thing is this time, i skipped the

"Jesus sake" part, coz I found it's not appealing, and my pray never got answered)

 

uhv2cntHCP: u play 2/1 right?

arrows: yes 2/1 GF

uhv2cntHCP: u play 2/1

uhv2cntHCP: so if u bid not standard way u have to alert

arrows: this is standard, 1H-2H below invitation, as I told you

(correct me if I am wrong)

uhv2cntHCP: so if the opener has lets say 17hcp and 2 h= 0-9 how u can find out what to do?

ruxi: pd, i wonder whether the friend is suggesting we should improve our bidding before coming to bbo?

->uhv2cntHCP: he bid on with strength, like everyone else does

 

(Thanks God, because there's no director to call, we are moving on....)

I somehow think that opps quite deserve such an answer.

If he wants to know whether 2H is a constructive raise or not, the proper question is "Do you play 2H as constructive?" Now, either yes or no would satisfy him.

If he wants to know the HCP range of 2H, for arrows' style, 0-9 is the only answer, not 6-9, because his 2H can be based on distribution.

So before some complain about the ethics, I just want to figure out a way to solve this problem and I believe there is a way if you ask for proper questions. Still, if I were arrows, I may behave more friendly and tell them that 2H isn't based on HCP, it can be rather wide in HCP range and it shows some playing strength that is below invitational. I don't think anybody would be unsatisfied with such an answer. Still, I do hope everybody can behave as nicely as possible here and I don't like some of the posters' attitude here.

[the hog]

Hannie, I too am not enamoured by the way Arrows answered the queries put to him. Having said that, however, I don't think he should have to resort to explaining his bids in terms of Milton Work count if he does not use that system. After all, a good many players do not use MWC. An explanation in the nature of that suggested by junyi zhu, (above), should be satisfactory. I suspect though, that if such an explanation, or perhaps one couched in terms of "losing trick count" were proferred, a good many players would not be satisfied.

[pclayton]

Arrows:

 

I defended you in another thread, not because that I think what you did was honorable, but because I thought a well known club here did not handle your situation professionally.

 

Some people seem to be a lightning rods for issues like this.

 

Frankly, I don't even bother read your threads anymore, but theres not a lot of good stuff on here as of late, so I end up reading this rubbish anyway.

 

There are some very good players on here, and most of them are telling you the same thing. Disclosure is for the benefit of the opponents. Its not a game you play; if you choose to evaluate your hand and want to evaluate a fitting zero count the same as quacky 5 count (I don't agree by the way) as a simple single raise, then go ahead and do it. Just tell your opponents, "it normally is a raise, but he's been known to do it on a very distributional hand with no points". This IS your agreement, and it should be alerted as a raise of 1♥ to 2♥ on: xxx, xxxx, void, xxxxxx may be good bridge in your mind, but it is definitely not standard.

 

If you want to make an agreement with your pard that your NT openings are 13-19, because everyone knows only idiots count points, and many 13's are better than 15's and a whole of 19's aren't as good as a lot of 17's, isn't it just better to say: "15 to 17, but he's been known to deviate a little". I'll bet you its more accurate too.

 

Furthermore, as far as the single raises are concerned, certainly not all zero counts with 3 or 4 trump qualify for single raises. I'm sure these hands (even for you) fall on the fringes of the zero point hands. So, to say 0-10 is in fact very misleading, since there ARE a lot of zeros and I'm guessing some four and five counts that would not qualify for a single raise.

 

If you sincere about trying to become a good player, I would suggest that you make a conscious effort over the next month to try to disclose way more than you think you need to. Active ethics aren't just an idealized way of playing; its something everyone should aspire to.

[arrows]

It's your choice to read whatever rubbish or not read whatever rubbish, LOL.

 

Just as funny as those who were imagining that I would want to really

join their table, and they would turn my request down or boot me or whatever

then would make them happy.

 

Do I really care?

[hrothgar]

It's your choice to read whatever rubbish or not read whatever rubbish, LOL.

 

Just as funny as those who were imagining that I would want to really

join their table,  and they would turn my request down or boot me or whatever

then would make them happy.

 

Do I really care?

Apparently, since you're posing (or do you prefer "posting"?)