Re: THE STIG COUNT

On Aug 3, 10:00 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This is a most revealing statement by Otis Bricker? and I've been
unable to find it here at RGB nor at Google, so please identify the
time and site, if any, for it. Was it a private letter?

Stig Holmquist

**************

But of course there is this more benign explanation for your inability
to locate the snippet from Otis. I had temporarily forgotten this
little exchange.....

/start thread summary/

I seem unable to recall my original posting about the 15 count so I
ask you to please tell me the date and context for it.

Stig

**

The 15-point count is discussed in the same Roth-Rubens thread.

Apologies if I misunderstood your question.

Henrysun909

**

Google Groups will see you home on this one. A quick search through
the
archives for "Stig points Rubens" located a thread called "What's
wrong
with the Roth point count?" I glanced at it and it seems to be the one
you and Henry are talking about. The date on this thread is May 1st,
so
it seems you ought to be able to see it even on your son's computer.
However, if you can't find it, and don't want to bother with a search,
the URL is:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/browse_thread/thread/...

Now that you can both read the same thing you can probably have a more
coherent conversation.

--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)

**

[intervening posts deleted not relevant to topic deleted]

Thank you for your kind advice, but the deletion of my original post
at r.g.b. is now my main concern.

Somebody evidently has the ability to violate the fundamental concept
of freedom of the press, which is part of the US constitution. Whoever
is in charge of r.g.b. thinks he should exercise censorship power to
protect somebody from valid criticism. He seems to treat r.g.b. as his
personal bailiwick, eventhough it is public airway. What a disgrace.

Stig Holmquist

**

That doesn't really mean anything. There is no "place" called r.g.b.
from which your post could have been deleted. You may have deleted on
your computer, your new provider may have deleted it from his server,
but neither of those is "r.g.b". The archives are to be found at
googlegroups, which is as close to a "place" called r.g.b. as you can
find.

Somebody evidently has the ability to violate the fundamental concept
of freedom of the press, which is part of the US constitution. Whoever
is in charge of r.g.b. thinks he should exercise censorship power to
protect somebody from valid criticism.

No one is in charge of r.g.b. No one can exercise censorship power in
r.g.b. Your paronia has been reinforced by your lack of understand
the
way usenet works.

He seems to treat r.g.b. as his
personal bailiwick, eventhough it is public airway. What a disgrace.

There is no such "he"; the disgrace is that people who know nothing
spew
forth their outrage which is based on nothing but ignorance.

**

[intervening post not relevant to topic deleted]

You are fighting windmills. There is no such thing as a physical
location of
r.g.b. with someone in charge.

Usenet providers usually keep articles for a month or two and then
delete
them. No one has the obligation to maintain an archive of older
articles, but
Google does so as a free service. And, as far as I can see, your
original
post is there.

**

So who is the "new provider"? He clearly used selective deletion
since older post were still left in. Remember what Nixon said: Just
because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

Stig Holmquist

**

Stig,

There are several things that could have caused your post to
"disappear".

[List of plausible examples deleted.]

All of these are much more likely than someone scanning the millions
of
posts that come through each day and selectively deleting the ones
they
don't like.

Otis

**

[posts irrelevant to the thread deleted]

None of the above apply. I now realize "stuff" just happens. Maybe the
famous fickle finger of fate did it. But more likely it was the benign
finger of God that inadvertently pressed a random button. Hallaluja.
Praise the Lord. How naive can you get? Nobody scans millions of post
for stuff to delete. All it takes is a deliberate deletion at the
request from a person with influence. My post resuted in a partial
correction of some nonsense written by Roth &Rubens. So in the end I'm
thankful for small favors. The squeaky wheel got greased.

I've been an iconoclast in my field of science and helped to overturn
a long cherrished belief and misconception and will continue to try to
do likewise in my spare time devotion to bridge. I muti-task.

Stig Holmquist

/end thread summary/

**************

Any further comment by my on this exchange would of course be
superfluous and anti-climactic, other than to ask whether Stig has any
proof that Steven or I deleted his post.

Henrysun909

On Jul 31, 9:45 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm but a novice trying to learn what it takes to open a hand before
going on to the next bid.

Best disregards,

Stig Holmquist
.