Warns of mind control.

It's certainly permitted under the Locarno Amendments of 1929, which is what we usually play to over here in social games. If the mood of this board is that Edgware takes precedence, I'll withdraw my move and replace it with Seven Sisters.
 
That definitely brings the Edgware branch into play, so I'm forced to respond with Tooting Bec.
 
Not if we're playing the '29 Locarno Amendments with Edgware taking precedence, but I admit it is a pretty fine distinction, and probably only a borderline move.
 
Anacoluthon64 said:
James Randi, being the busy man he is, is very likely to ignore your request entirely ....
Click to expand...
I know James Randi is busy with uncoverring paranormal fraud, it seems he has already proved all these published paranormal phenomena and famous paranormal power holder are fraud. In this case, I want to know why he is still busy with the issue, don't he think it is waste time and money?
I come here again just with the hope of he will choise some of non-famous claim which might being prevented to be published by somebody.

Big Les said:
I'm pretty sure you need to submit your challenge application according to the information on this page: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html....
Click to expand...
Yes, I had read it for times. chinese paranormal investigators won't truly investigate my claim, they are worthy cn gov's trust but not worthy your trust.
 
Mojo said:
That definitely brings the Edgware branch into play, so I'm forced to respond with Tooting Bec.
Click to expand...

What is it with Tooting Bec that appeals so much, even to experienced players? .... I suspect it is simply its appealing sound.

Well, you leave me little option, provided we still want to keep the game transparant to spectators, other than risking:

Bermondsey

Hans
 
telepathy said:
I know James Randi is busy with uncoverring paranormal fraud, it seems he has already proved all these published paranormal phenomena and famous paranormal power holder are fraud. In this case, I want to know why he is still busy with the issue, don't he think it is waste time and money?
I come here again just with the hope of he will choise some of non-famous claim which might being prevented to be published by somebody.


Yes, I had read it for times. chinese paranormal investigators won't truly investigate my claim, they are worthy cn gov's trust but not worthy your trust.
Click to expand...
Hello! You make a claim. What do you expect Randi, or anybody else, to do? Take your word for it? Come to China and investigate?

What is it you want?

Hans
 
I feel obliged to inform you that I have been recently working at a major London Underground contractor for the last few weeks. They have access to MC modelling systems you can only dream of and at night play by a set of arcane "lights out" rules.

So here goes...

Ravenscourt Park
 
telepathy said:
I know James Randi is busy with uncoverring paranormal fraud, it seems he has already proved all these published paranormal phenomena and famous paranormal power holder are fraud. In this case, I want to know why he is still busy with the issue, don't he think it is waste time and money?
I come here again just with the hope of he will choise some of non-famous claim which might being prevented to be published by somebody.
Click to expand...

I am sure he will indeed take an interest in looking into this - if you submit an appropriate claim through the usual channels.
 
zooloo said:
I can't believe you did that... Mornington Cresent!

Thank you :D
Click to expand...
Please explain this to me, because it looks like a violation of the Hinckley-Bombeck Criterion for Conformal Closures. After The Don played his move, it seemed to me that the two prior moves and the switchback earlier would force a Pullman Stockyard Choke three moves hence, which in turn would necessitate a regroup on Central red, i.e. Grange Hill.

Am I wrong?

'Luthon64
 
zooloo said:
I can't believe you did that... Mornington Cresent!

Thank you :D

BTW, Anacoluthon64 the Underground map will help you follow the game. - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/colourmap.gif
Click to expand...

Anacoluthon64 said:
Please explain this to me, because it looks like a violation of the Hinckley-Bombeck Criterion for Conformal Closures. After The Don played his move, it seemed to me that the two prior moves and the switchback earlier would force a Pullman Stockyard Choke three moves hence, which in turn would necessitate a regroup on Central red, i.e. Grange Hill.

Am I wrong?

'Luthon64
Click to expand...

I would say this is allowed under the Greenwich Revisions of '89, although there is some controvosy whether this should take precidence over the H-B Criterion.
 
Cuddles said:
I would say this is allowed under the Greenwich Revisions of '89, although there is some controvosy whether this should take precidence over the H-B Criterion.
Click to expand...
Hmm, okay, I'll take a peek at said Greenwich Revisions. In the meantime, any suggestions on how the precedence controversy might be resolved without ambiguity?

'Luthon64
 
That was solved in the Carlton Modification. Unfortunately, that has been considered apocryphical ever since Calton's association with Cholmondly at the 1983 Brisbane tournament was uncovered.

Hans
 
Well, there have been a number of attempts to resolve this particular problem, none of them entirely satisfactory. I think the closest we came was in 1938 when Wing Commander Bill "Starkers" Starkweather-Moore published his analysis of the effects various rule variations had on the probability of an unresovable double reverse side shunt developing as a result of H-B coming into play.

Unfortunately Starkers was killed in 1940 before he could complete his follow up work on a really effective solution. Others have tried to work out what he had in mind (in fact the group who produced the Greenwich revisions used his work) but the Wing Commander used a personal shorthand that know one has been able to crack. I know the boys at Bletchley Park, some of whom were MC players of international standing before the war, had a crack but even they could not decipher it.
 
Camillus said:
Unfortunately Starkers was killed in 1940 before he could complete his follow up work on a really effective solution. Others have tried to work out what he had in mind (in fact the group who produced the Greenwich revisions used his work) but the Wing Commander used a personal shorthand that know one has been able to crack. I know the boys at Bletchley Park, some of whom were MC players of international standing before the war, had a crack but even they could not decipher it.
Click to expand...
In that case, I'll play a wild card:
Tufnell Park
My partial decryption of the Starkweather Code, combined with study of the unpublished pages of the Greenwich revisions (written by Col JR "Rabbit" Hutchinson in Farsi) has convinced me that this trumps even Barking!
 
zooloo said:
I can't believe you did that... Mornington Cresent!

Thank you :D

BTW, Anacoluthon64 the Underground map will help you follow the game. - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/colourmap.gif
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that your eagerness got the better of you, or perhaps you were unaware of three things:

- The Waterloo and City line is closed until later this year
- Regent's Park is closed for refurbishing
- The Jubilee Line Extension has caused the Greenwich Revisions to be reconsidered and Featherstonehaugh's Gambit can no longer be applied retrospectively

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this case
 
The Don said:
I'm afraid that your eagerness got the better of you, or perhaps you were unaware of three things:

- The Waterloo and City line is closed until later this year
- Regent's Park is closed for refurbishing
- The Jubilee Line Extension has caused the Greenwich Revisions to be reconsidered and Featherstonehaugh's Gambit can no longer be applied retrospectively

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this case
Click to expand...
Okay, I now see the answer to my earlier question - thank you for clearing that up. The last point also makes obvious why the Central red regroup I suggested before is not workable. On that basis, I agree that sophia8's move is valid, though perhaps a little overeager.

By bit-wise correspondence, as allowed in the Jager-Amwald-Baer session some years ago,

Holloway Road

'Luthon64
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom