[MrAce]

barmar, on 2015-June-08, 13:26, said:

Which is somewhat OK, but there are right and wrong places for this. If you think you're an expert and want to argue your opinions with other experts, the Expert forum is an appropriate place. They're all big boys there, they can deal with it. The Novice/Beginner forum is not a good place, because its purpose is education of beginners, and "discussions" like this will be more confusing than helpful.

This


+ 1 million.

[helene_t]

I might be wrong but that someone is deliberately trying to misinform beginners would rarely be the most likely explanation imo. I think Diana's explanation is more likely to be true.

I don't think Al-u-card deleiberately misinforms anyone about climate change either. He might deliberately cherry-pick evidence etc. (as most of us probably do in such debates) but the basic message is probably something he believes to be true.

I recall from when I was a teenager I held some very bizare political views and would construct fairly absurd arguments in their defense. There were certainly times where I were aware that my arguments were not very sound, and towards the day when I eventually gave up most of those believes there probably was a while when I didn't believe everything I was saying but held on to some views because I was afraid of admiting I had been wrong.

[MrAce]

helene_t, on 2015-June-09, 04:06, said:

.

I recall from when I was a teenager I held some very bizare political views and would construct fairly absurd arguments in their defense. There were certainly times where I were aware that my arguments were not very sound, and towards the day when I eventually gave up most of those believes there probably was a while when I didn't believe everything I was saying but held on to some views because I was afraid of admiting I had been wrong.

Being afraid to admitting that you were wrong is ok. As long as you keep it silent afterwards or among your teenager friends. The minute you go into a kinder garden, or a primary school and continuously try to tell these to kids who has no or little knowledge about the subject, after telling them that you are a mentor, is not ok.

Another example related to what actually being here imo is; You may not deliberately want to harm kids. But there is another person that you hate and he says to kids "Smoking is bad for your health" and you say the opposite just to piss off the person you hate, or just to receive attention, then even though your intention was not to harm kids, this is exactly what you might be doing.

Actually to find out whether someone is really stupid or a troll is easy. We can check the hand records, thanks to BBO. Check the auctions and actions taken by the person in question. If you see he/she is not doing any of the stupid bids he suggests in forums = he is a troll. Otherwise he is plain too stupid. I actually checked his hand records.

Something like

xx
Kxxxx
Qxx
Jxx

His pd opened 1m and RHO overcalled 1♠ and PhilG007 bid 2♥. Maybe he really does not use negative DBL after all, as he advertised. So maybe he is genuine. Although some other hands tell otherwise.

But regardless, you do not let someone around kids, whether he is pedophile or touching the kids inappropriately out of stupidity with no sexual harm intended and doesn't know any better. You simply can not let this happen.

[helene_t]

Ha-ha, I was just called out on facebook for comparing the Dutch LGBT movement's dilema with their pedophile fraction to the British one's dilema with their UKIP fraction. Delighted, now, to see that pedophilia can also be compared to not playing negative doubles

[MrAce]

helene_t, on 2015-June-09, 04:47, said:

Ha-ha, I was just called out on facebook for comparing the Dutch LGBT movement's dilema with their pedophile fraction to the British one's dilema with their UKIP fraction. Delighted, now, to see that pedophilia can also be compared to not playing negative doubles

[kenberg]

Except for being pleased that there seems to be agreement I figured there was nothing more to say.
Helene'e post) (which I argee with, prompts this suggestion:you could adopt a p;o0licy along the following lines:

"The B/N forum hopes to assist newer players in learning mainstream bridge practices so that they cam easily play online with other newer plaers. With this in mind we will sometimes restrict postings that we believe to be outside of mainstream ideas."

This way it is not necessary to declare someone to be either a troll or an idiot. You just say it isn't sufficiently mainstream for the B/N forum. As the bbo representatives, the judgment is entirely yours as to what is sufficiently mainstream. We denizens of other forums can cope.

A friend of my wife's has expressed an interest in learning bridge (she has had a very basic intro to rubber bridge). I gave her the telephone number of someone who plays, directs and teaches and said I think you will like her and she can be trusted to give sensible advice. That seems to be what you are aiming for and you can just do it.

[nige1]

helene_t, on 2015-June-09, 04:47, said:

Ha-ha, I was just called out on facebook for comparing the Dutch LGBT movement's dilema with their pedophile fraction to the British one's dilema with their UKIP fraction. Delighted, now, to see that pedophilia can also be compared to not playing negative doubles

Mr Ace's analogy is interesting. Traditionally, when teaching Bridge, we kept things as simple as possible, at least to begin with. For example ...

• Most bids are natural and limited. (Splinters, Cue-bids, Trial-bids, Asking-bids, Transfers, etc can be introduced later).
• Doubles are natural and penalty, apart from doubles of opening suit bids. (Negative, Responsive, Maximal, Lead-directing, and other conventional doubles are introduced later).

Arguably, that traditional approach is mistaken, because switching to the main-stream, requires us to unlearn what we've taken trouble to learn. Experts in the beginners' forum seem to adopt a more modern approach, introducing conventions that are unfamiliar to many traditionally taught beginners e.g. Protective 1N, Non-limit raises.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2015-June-09, 04:06, said:

I recall from when I was a teenager I held some very bizare political views and would construct fairly absurd arguments in their defense. There were certainly times where I were aware that my arguments were not very sound, and towards the day when I eventually gave up most of those believes there probably was a while when I didn't believe everything I was saying but held on to some views because I was afraid of admiting I had been wrong.

This is actually a well known psychological effect. When you have a long-held belief, you develop a sense of "ownership" of it. Giving it up feels like losing something. To avoid cognitive dissonance, the mind will sometimes construct elaborate justifications for the original view.

This is why it's so hard to use rational arguments to convince people to give up ingrained beliefs like religion, sexism, and racism.