Re: self-explanations and self-alerts

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:56:45 +0000 (UTC),
gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <ik6o04554l8o6d1fd1brd8r4gv8vu20bd4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>dranon  <dranon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>...
>>You are just wrong, Bob.  But you are not alone.  Many in the online
>>community (at least at BBO) share your misguided understanding.
>>However, if you were to bother to actually read the site rules, you
>>might find that you are wrong and stop making silly in public.
>
>You are talking at cross purposes.  It is not clear exactly what Bob _is_
>talking about, but he is _not_ talking about the same thing that you are
>talking about.  Where I work (software dev), we have a long-standing
>policy that nobody is ever wrong.  This is achieved by never having two
>people be talking about exactly the same thing.
>
>Such is the case here.  I think Bob is talking about "How it is on the
>street", while the rest are talking about theoretically correct.  Note
>that I personally agree 100% with most of the posters here - my practice
>is that the extent of any agreements that I have is an implicit "SAYC as
>you see it, do your best" - i.e., absolutely nothing explicit.  So, I
>can, in all honesty, respond to all queries with "no agreement".

Bull****.  Strong letter to follow.  You are just as arrogant as Bob
has been.  Let me state this clearly, so that even you can understand
it: IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT YOUR OPPS KNOW WHAT SAYC MEANS.  

Do you get it?

Want me to repeat it?

If you are asked what a bid means and there is a specific meaning in
your variation of SAYC and you have agreed to play SAYC, then you
must, repeat MUST, describe what that meaning is.  Period.  To do
otherwise is very, very, very close to the C word.

>However, Bob's point is that that is not how it is on the street, and if
>you are not strong-willed enough to insist on it, you could easily be
>convinced otherwise.

Many are.  Affects me not one whit.