[ArtK78]

nige1, on 2014-February-25, 06:58, said:

Agree with Lurpoa about remarks that are deliberately hurtful to individuals. IMO, we shouldn't upvote them, however amusing.

Agree with Lurpoa about what? All she did was quote MrAce's signature.

Her post has nothing to do with this thread and is totally out of place.

[MrAce]

nige1, on 2014-February-25, 06:58, said:

Agree with Lurpoa about remarks that are deliberately hurtful to individuals. IMO, we shouldn't upvote them, however amusing.

What strikes me the most is someone agreeing with Lurpoa and finishing his sentence with a complaint about upvoting. Who would guess this except than a siggy which says stupidity is boundless. Never the less a great candidate for "most hopeless and clueless comments" topic.

Did you really think what upvoted was my siggy ?


I also don't understand why would my siggy hurt anyone,since none of my siggies have a specific name addressed. Unless of course the offended people see themselves very well defined in these phrases,

But the rules and laws of so called civilized society has changed so much in a way, now we live in a society where we are more concerned about the civil rights of abusers than the abused ones and start seeing the abused ones as abusers. Then we forget that Lurpoa upvotes daily until she runs out of her daily upvote available, and we forget that every member in forums lost their privilege to downvote because of her, then we forget that she contributes nothing except than "be the love with you" or enlarged ♥ symbols or "discuss it with your pd" and see these as her rights while see those whoever reacts to her abuse, as abusers. We can even have a momentarily insanity and agree with her even though we did not understand what she tried to say and what was up voted . When the momentarily insanity lasts longer than couple seconds we may even go head and post this.

Interesting logic, but definitely consistent with your views about bridge.

[Lurpoa]

ArtK78, on 2014-February-25, 09:41, said:

Agree with Lurpoa about what? All she did was quote MrAce's signature.

Her post has nothing to do with this thread and is totally out of place.

Just that they take a lot of place.
and a lot of colour

... well for somebody who doen't like hearts.....even little tittle one :♥


PS: i keep the Mystère-car for next post. Too much room taken here

[Lurpoa]

LOL- Logic

NOT TRUE,

and as always ....(censured)

Your modern society, seems to be the one, were the one who shouts most and loudest is King.

MrAce, on 2014-February-25, 19:00, said:

What strikes me the most is someone agreeing with Lurpoa and finishing his sentence with a complaint about upvoting. Who would guess this except than a siggy which says stupidity is boundless. Never the less a great candidate for "most hopeless and clueless comments" topic.

Did you really think what upvoted was my siggy ?


I also don't understand why would my siggy hurt anyone,since none of my siggies have a specific name addressed. Unless of course the offended people see themselves very well defined in these phrases,

But the rules and laws of so called civilized society has changed so much in a way, now we live in a society where we are more concerned about the civil rights of abusers than the abused ones and start seeing the abused ones as abusers. Then we forget that Lurpoa upvotes daily until she runs out of her daily upvote available, and we forget that every member in forums lost their privilege to downvote because of her, then we forget that she contributes nothing except than "be the love with you" or enlarged ♥ symbols or "discuss it with your pd" and see these as her rights while see those whoever reacts to her abuse, as abusers. We can even have a momentarily insanity and agree with her even though we did not understand what she tried to say and what was up voted . When the momentarily insanity lasts longer than couple seconds we may even go head and post this.

Interesting logic, but definitely consistent with your views about bridge.

[Antrax]

As an aside, I wrote a Greasemonkey script to hide signatures on this forum. If anyone's interested, it's below (in spoiler tags to not stretch the page too much). If you only want to remove signatures (and not the "interests" field under a poster's name) just comment out or delete the last line (RemoveInterests())

Spoiler

// ==UserScript==
// @name           Remove BBF sigs
// @namespace      Doron
// ==/UserScript==

function removeElement(el, attribs, attribValue) 
{

	// Get element tag

	var div = document.getElementsByTagName(el);

	var myAttribs = "";

		for (var i = div.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {

			// Get attribute

			myAttribs = div[i].getAttribute(attribs);

			// Get attribute value

			if(myAttribs == attribValue){

				div[i].parentNode.removeChild(div[i]);

			}

		}

};

function removeInterests()
{
	var user_fields = document.getElementsByClassName("user_fields");
	for (var j = user_fields.length - 1; j >= 0; --j)
	{
  	var fieldList   = user_fields[j].getElementsByTagName("span");
	  for (var i = 0; i < fieldList.length; ++i)
	  {
		  var txt = fieldList[i].textContent;
		  if ("Interests:" == txt)
		  {
			  fieldList[i].parentNode.removeChild(fieldList[i+1]);
			  fieldList[i].parentNode.removeChild(fieldList[i]);
			 break;
		  } 
	  }
	}
}
removeElement('div', 'class', 'signature');
removeInterests();

[Zelandakh]

Antrax, on 2014-March-24, 12:02, said:

As an aside, I wrote a Greasemonkey script to hide signatures on this forum.

Could you not just uncheck "View members' signatures when reading topics?" under Profile->Forums?

[Antrax]

I'm... I'm not sure how to feel just now.

[rmnka447]

Double seems right.

3 ♣ would have shown limit raise plus, 3 ♦ shows ♠ and values with presumably tolerance for ♥s.

So 3 ♥ shows some competitive values and a fit, but what? Since responder isn't marked with a lot, I don't think double at this point is mandating that they defend. Rather I think it's more informatory that the responder's "constructive" values include some defense.

It's important for responder to tell opener this because opener's 4 ♥ bid is somewhat ambiguous. Responder can't know whether opener's 4 ♥ was pushing to a thin game, bidding to make, or bidding on with a monster. Double simply tells responder's story and leaves the decision to opener.

If instead of 3 ♥, responder had bid 3 ♣ showing values, a double in this situation would demand defending.