[blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Alain Gottcheiner:

>>Hardy is also the man who, on explaining the "ex falso quodlibet"
>>principle (from a falsity, you may deduce anything), was
>>challenged to prove that Mr. Whatsisname was the Pope, given the
>>premise that 2+2=5. He proceeded to do it in the following way :
>>
>>"From 2+2=5, subtract 2 from both members.
>>You get 2=3.
>>Now, Mr. Whatsisname, the Pope and Yours Truly are three people,
>>hence two (because 2=3).
>>Since I'm not the Pope, Mr. Whatsisname is."

Richard Hills:

While the Roman Catholic Church has a hierarchical system of
governance, with the Pope holding supreme delegated authority as
the infallible Vicar (steward or regent) of Christ, Jewish legend
has a different approach to religious governance.

Gerard W. Hughes, God in All Things, pages 196-197:

>There is a long tradition in Judaism that the world is upheld at
>any given time by the presence of thirty-six Just People, known as
>the Lamed-wah.  Through no fault of their own, the Lamed-wah bear
>the burden of the sin and guilt of the world; a burden which leads
>them from one disaster to another.  They are not necessarily aware
>of their destiny as Lamed-wah, 'The Just', but they endure their
>intolerable burdens while retaining their trust in God, their love
>for themselves and for their neighbour.  According to the legend,
>the world would die of its own corruption without the incorruptible
>fidelity of 'The Just'."

Richard Hills:

In my opinion, the Bridge Laws surrogates for the Lamed-wah would be
(in alphabetical order) Grattan Endicott, Ton Kooijman and William
Schoder for their efforts in shouldering the intolerable burdens of
rewriting what is a somewhat corrupt 1997 Lawbook.

William Schoder, "Beware of the leopard thread", 23 December 2004:

>>>Ah come'on now, Mr. Hills. Are you trying to make bridge a game
>>>to be enjoyed all over again?  Pity the poor analysts of the Laws
>>>-- you're not even looking for hidden and esoteric meanings!  Why,
>>>if such were to continue, we'd even expect to be educating the
>>>novices, enforcing the laws for all, and there would be little
>>>difference in knowing that the rotation of bidding and play go to
>>>the left, and that the LHO of the declarer makes the opening lead,
>>>and that trumps are a good thing to have, and that the suits rank
>>>in a certain order, what takes a trick, etc., etc., and expecting
>>>the players to know what game they are playing.  We might even
>>>include requiring people to know the voluminous and intricate
>>>rules (Laws) - which are a hell-of-a-lot shorter and more concise
>>>than cricket, football (American or otherwise), baseball, chess,
>>>and poker. And then, we might again find the joy, fun,
>>>gratification, and satisfaction of playing this game with a
>>>modicum or more of preparation and increased proper procedure and
>>>ethics at the tables. I most emphatically do NOT subscribe to the
>>>philosophy that the players don't need to know the Laws.
>>>
>>>What a radical thought, I must be heading for my dotage.
>>>
>>>Kojak


Season's greetings

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285

Your Rights at Work
worth voting for