PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] Round 1849, SCIAMACHY results, Corrected


Dodi Schultz
October 14th, 2007, 11:48 PM
Toni and Wayne, thanks for the legible copies.

Guerri's right, I'm NOT the next dealer, and I'm afraid that there are a
whole lot of things fouled up. Not only were some scores wrong; some people
who voted were recorded as not voting. Mike, you'll not be surprised to
learn that you'll need to redo the rolling scores.

The report is, of course, unstructured and not easy to read, but:

Def #3, Guerri's, got not one vote but two--Mike's and Toni's.

Tim Bourne (#4), is recorded as not voting but actually voted for #8 and
#15.

My def, #5, got two votes, Chris's and Tim Lodge's, so my score is 4, not
5.

Chuck Emery (#6), whom Dave recorded as "NV," did vote, for #1 and #11, as
noted under those numbers.

Mike's def, #8, got not only Guerri's, Dan's, John's, and Nancy's votes but
also Tim Bourne's, for a total score of 5, not 4.

Nancy (#13), not recorded as voting, actually voted for #6 and #8, as noted
under those defs.

Wayne's def, #15, was voted for not onlly by Tony but also by Tim Bourne,
so his score is not 1 but 2.

And I'm not the next dealer. MIKE is.

Sheesh.

--Dodi

Dave Cunningham
October 15th, 2007, 05:42 AM
Argh -- I checked and double checked the messages on Googlegroups --
dunno how anything slipped by, but the same thing has happened before
(sigh)

Dave

On Oct 15, 12:48 am, Dodi Schultz <SCHU... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> Toni and Wayne, thanks for the legible copies.
>
> Guerri's right, I'm NOT the next dealer, and I'm afraid that there are a
> whole lot of things fouled up. Not only were some scores wrong; some people
> who voted were recorded as not voting. Mike, you'll not be surprised to
> learn that you'll need to redo the rolling scores.
>
> The report is, of course, unstructured and not easy to read, but:
>
> Def #3, Guerri's, got not one vote but two--Mike's and Toni's.
>
> Tim Bourne (#4), is recorded as not voting but actually voted for #8 and
> #15.
>
> My def, #5, got two votes, Chris's and Tim Lodge's, so my score is 4, not
> 5.
>
> Chuck Emery (#6), whom Dave recorded as "NV," did vote, for #1 and #11, as
> noted under those numbers.
>
> Mike's def, #8, got not only Guerri's, Dan's, John's, and Nancy's votes but
> also Tim Bourne's, for a total score of 5, not 4.
>
> Nancy (#13), not recorded as voting, actually voted for #6 and #8, as noted
> under those defs.
>
> Wayne's def, #15, was voted for not onlly by Tony but also by Tim Bourne,
> so his score is not 1 but 2.
>
> And I'm not the next dealer. MIKE is.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> --Dodi

Dodi Schultz
October 15th, 2007, 10:15 AM
>> I checked and double checked the messages dunno how anything slipped
>> by, but the same thing has happened before...

Yes, and when you say you seem to have missed messages, I don't get it:
Among other things, you actually recorded votes for people you then said
hadn't voted.

Perhaps, Dave, if you used one of the three available dealing programs, or
at least made an effort to follow the format of one of them, you and the
rest of us would be able to see the data more clearly.

--Dodi

Dave Cunningham
October 15th, 2007, 11:26 AM
The *only* message I missed was Tim's -- which was *not* a reply to
the list of defs.

I believe I have now dealt more rounds than any other player, and
while I appreciate that you have urged me at every opportunity to give
up doing things manually, it is wrong for you to call single votes
which were NOT given as a reply to the list of defs as being plural
votes <g>. The reason why you did not see the list of results as
simple text was due to a foreign alphabet being used in defs -- which
is not my fault at all.

The real answer is for votes to be made as REPLIES to the list of defs
-- which used to be a rule IIRC.


Dave
DQ, DF


On Oct 15, 11:15 am, Dodi Schultz <SCHU... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> >> I checked and double checked the messages dunno how anything slipped
> >> by, but the same thing has happened before...
>
> Yes, and when you say you seem to have missed messages, I don't get it:
> Among other things, you actually recorded votes for people you then said
> hadn't voted.
>
> Perhaps, Dave, if you used one of the three available dealing programs, or
> at least made an effort to follow the format of one of them, you and the
> rest of us would be able to see the data more clearly.
>
> --Dodi

Dodi Schultz
October 15th, 2007, 05:23 PM
>> The *only* message I missed was Tim's -- which was *not* a reply to
>> the list of defs.

It certainly appeared to be so in the e-mail *I* received.

In any event, Dave, does what you're referring to explain your listing
Chuck's votes, for example, and then saying he was "NV"?

>> I appreciate that you have urged me at every opportunity to give up
>> doing things manually...

No, you misquote me. What I said was, "If you used one of the three
available dealing programs, OR AT LEAST MADE AN EFFORT TO FOLLOW THE FORMAT
OF ONE OF THEM..." [Emphasis added.] There have (rarely) been others who
have opted to deal manually but have copied a dealer software format
instead of using a sketchy sort of shorthand style that challenges other
players to decode meanings of notations.

>> The real answer is for votes to be made as REPLIES to the list of
>> defs -- which used to be a rule IIRC.

When the rules were made in 1990, I believe we were not all choosing to
play the game in three different venues. (I THINK that the majority now
play by e-mail, although I'm not sure.) The rule to which you refer was
intended to assure that votes would be cast publicly so they could be seen
by the other players.

--Dodi

JohnnyB
October 15th, 2007, 06:01 PM
People


> The reason why you did not see the list of results as simple text was due to a foreign alphabet being used in defs -- which is not
my fault at all.

May I ask if anyone other than Dodi failed to get the message?

I am probably the originator of the "foreign alphabet" - in fact it was not a foreign alphabet but a different part of a font set.
I typed "skia" and "maxh" but I typed in symbol font so it came out as Greek = sigma kappa iota alpha and micro alpha chai heh --
- symbol font is part of the high-bit-character-set of many commonly used fonts...accented characters too are like that as are
ligatures.

My point being that I wonder if it was only the old 16 bit software that failed to deal with the message

I'd sort of like to know if we are limited in what we can use.

JohnnyB

Daniel B. Widdis
October 15th, 2007, 07:17 PM
DS> The rule to which you refer was intended to
DS> assure that votes would be cast publicly so
DS> they could be seen by the other players.

Whatever the intent was, I think the point is that one of the votes was
posted as a reply to the call for defs rather than the call for votes.

People who get their email as separate, unthreaded messages probably didn't
miss the vote. Those of us whose software groups similar messages in
threads, including those who read votes at tapcis.com and the goooglegroups
website, easily missed the misthreaded message. I'd have to cut the dealer
some slack for missing that particular vote.

--
Dan

Toni Savage
October 15th, 2007, 08:51 PM
And for everyone NOT to get fancy with fonts and
languages.

A lot of us view things in plain text, and get various
kinds of garble when different alphabets are used.



--- Dave Cunningham <cunn5393 (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net> wrote:

>
>
> The *only* message I missed was Tim's -- which was
> *not* a reply to
> the list of defs.
>
> I believe I have now dealt more rounds than any
> other player, and
> while I appreciate that you have urged me at every
> opportunity to give
> up doing things manually, it is wrong for you to
> call single votes
> which were NOT given as a reply to the list of defs
> as being plural
> votes <g>. The reason why you did not see the list
> of results as
> simple text was due to a foreign alphabet being used
> in defs -- which
> is not my fault at all.
>
> The real answer is for votes to be made as REPLIES
> to the list of defs
> -- which used to be a rule IIRC.
>
>
> Dave
> DQ, DF
>
>
> On Oct 15, 11:15 am, Dodi Schultz
> <SCHU... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> > >> I checked and double checked the messages
> dunno how anything slipped
> > >> by, but the same thing has happened before...
> >
> > Yes, and when you say you seem to have missed
> messages, I don't get it:
> > Among other things, you actually recorded votes
> for people you then said
> > hadn't voted.
> >
> > Perhaps, Dave, if you used one of the three
> available dealing programs, or
> > at least made an effort to follow the format of
> one of them, you and the
> > rest of us would be able to see the data more
> clearly.
> >
> > --Dodi
>
>


-- Toni Savage

Toni Savage
October 15th, 2007, 08:53 PM
I'm a plain-text kinda person, and such fonts tend to
mess up the message. I don't mind it in off-topics,
but in the def list itself, it's a pain....



--- JohnnyB <johnnybarrs (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

>
> People
>
>
> > The reason why you did not see the list of results
> as simple text was due to a foreign alphabet being
> used in defs -- which is not
> my fault at all.
>
> May I ask if anyone other than Dodi failed to get
> the message?
>
> I am probably the originator of the "foreign
> alphabet" - in fact it was not a foreign alphabet
> but a different part of a font set.
> I typed "skia" and "maxh" but I typed in symbol font
> so it came out as Greek = sigma kappa iota alpha
> and micro alpha chai heh --
> - symbol font is part of the high-bit-character-set
> of many commonly used fonts...accented characters
> too are like that as are
> ligatures.
>
> My point being that I wonder if it was only the old
> 16 bit software that failed to deal with the message
>
> I'd sort of like to know if we are limited in what
> we can use.
>
> JohnnyB
>
>
>


-- Toni Savage

Dodi Schultz
October 15th, 2007, 09:03 PM
>> May I ask if anyone other than Dodi failed to get the message?

As far as I'm concerned, Johnny, not a really big deal. Obviously something
had rendered it an attachment, as far as Compuserve was concerned. And then
I couldn't read it at all when I DID get it; it wasn't HTML, or PDF, or
Word, or anything else my system recognized.

But two players posted plaintext copies pretty quickly, so...

--Dodi

Dodi Schultz
October 15th, 2007, 09:03 PM
>> I'd have to cut the dealer some slack for missing that particular
>> vote.

Sure! That wasn't my main complaint, Dan.

--Dodi

JohnnyB
October 16th, 2007, 05:30 AM
Toni

Heard and noted - thanks

JohnnyB

>
>
> I'm a plain-text kinda person, and such fonts tend to mess up
> the message. I don't mind it in off-topics, but in the def
> list itself, it's a pain....
>
>

Dave Cunningham
October 16th, 2007, 01:03 PM
My format antedates the programs -- it is fatuous to suppose that the
format is critical. I admitted to missing ONE vote which was not sent
as a reply to the list of defs. It was sent as a reply to the request
for defs ... which is not where I really expected a vote to end up.

This is not exactly "a whole lot of things" <sigh>.



On Oct 15, 6:23 pm, Dodi Schultz <SCHU... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> >> The *only* message I missed was Tim's -- which was *not* a reply to
> >> the list of defs.
>
> It certainly appeared to be so in the e-mail *I* received.
>
> In any event, Dave, does what you're referring to explain your listing
> Chuck's votes, for example, and then saying he was "NV"?
>
> >> I appreciate that you have urged me at every opportunity to give up
> >> doing things manually...
>
> No, you misquote me. What I said was, "If you used one of the three
> available dealing programs, OR AT LEAST MADE AN EFFORT TO FOLLOW THE FORMAT
> OF ONE OF THEM..." [Emphasis added.] There have (rarely) been others who
> have opted to deal manually but have copied a dealer software format
> instead of using a sketchy sort of shorthand style that challenges other
> players to decode meanings of notations.
>
> >> The real answer is for votes to be made as REPLIES to the list of
> >> defs -- which used to be a rule IIRC.
>
> When the rules were made in 1990, I believe we were not all choosing to
> play the game in three different venues. (I THINK that the majority now
> play by e-mail, although I'm not sure.) The rule to which you refer was
> intended to assure that votes would be cast publicly so they could be seen
> by the other players.
>
> --Dodi

France International
October 16th, 2007, 01:28 PM
I'm tempted to post the results of the upcoming round in High
Elvish....using Mayan numerals.

--Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Cunningham" <cunn5393 (AT) bellsouth (DOT) net>
To: "Dixonary" <Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Round 1849, SCIAMACHY results, Corrected


>
> My format antedates the programs -- it is fatuous to suppose that the
> format is critical. I admitted to missing ONE vote which was not sent
> as a reply to the list of defs. It was sent as a reply to the request
> for defs ... which is not where I really expected a vote to end up.
>
> This is not exactly "a whole lot of things" <sigh>.
>
>
>
> On Oct 15, 6:23 pm, Dodi Schultz <SCHU... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> > >> The *only* message I missed was Tim's -- which was *not* a reply to
> > >> the list of defs.
> >
> > It certainly appeared to be so in the e-mail *I* received.
> >
> > In any event, Dave, does what you're referring to explain your listing
> > Chuck's votes, for example, and then saying he was "NV"?
> >
> > >> I appreciate that you have urged me at every opportunity to give up
> > >> doing things manually...
> >
> > No, you misquote me. What I said was, "If you used one of the three
> > available dealing programs, OR AT LEAST MADE AN EFFORT TO FOLLOW THE
FORMAT
> > OF ONE OF THEM..." [Emphasis added.] There have (rarely) been others who
> > have opted to deal manually but have copied a dealer software format
> > instead of using a sketchy sort of shorthand style that challenges other
> > players to decode meanings of notations.
> >
> > >> The real answer is for votes to be made as REPLIES to the list of
> > >> defs -- which used to be a rule IIRC.
> >
> > When the rules were made in 1990, I believe we were not all choosing to
> > play the game in three different venues. (I THINK that the majority now
> > play by e-mail, although I'm not sure.) The rule to which you refer was
> > intended to assure that votes would be cast publicly so they could be
seen
> > by the other players.
> >
> > --Dodi
>

JohnnyB
October 16th, 2007, 02:29 PM
Mike

>
> I'm tempted to post the results of the upcoming round in High
> Elvish....using Mayan numerals.
>

Now there is a challenge - who has the fonts for either of those?


JohnnyB

Dave Cunningham
October 16th, 2007, 04:02 PM
http://www.dafont.com/theme.php?cat=705 Elvish

http://www.kstrom.net/isk/maya/mayatabs.html Mayan numbers (which
look like bars, balls and footballs, sorta.)


On Oct 16, 3:29 pm, JohnnyB <johnnyba... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> Mike
>
>
>
> > I'm tempted to post the results of the upcoming round in High
> > Elvish....using Mayan numerals.
>
> Now there is a challenge - who has the fonts for either of those?
>
> JohnnyB

JohnnyB
October 16th, 2007, 04:34 PM
Thanks Dave

I have a tengwar font (but not any of those) but for the mayan I only had a photocopy of a Richard Feynman lecture hand-out from,
long long ago


JohnnyB

Paul Keating
October 16th, 2007, 04:51 PM
> From: "JohnnyB" <johnnybarrs (AT) gmail (DOT) com>


> > High Elvish...Mayan numerals.
>
> Now there is a challenge - who has the fonts for either of those?


Well, you'll find the encodings on the Unicode mythic plane and Unicode
Andean plane, respectively.

Seriously, the possibilies of encoding Maya were explored at the Unicode
conference in Prague, 2003. I don't think much further work has been done in
that area. The ConScript Unicode Registry has defined a range of the Unicode
Private Use Area for Tengwar.

As for fonts, you can find several Tengwar fonts at
http://www.sci.fi/~alboin/tengwartutorial.htm and a Mayan font at
http://www.dafont.com/font.php?file=mayan.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague