IMJ Terminology And Score Elements Worksheet (2nd draft)
Cofa Tsui
Dear Friends,
IMJ Terminology And Score Elements Worksheet (2nd draft)
I have posted a 2nd draft of the International Mahjong Terminology And Score
Elements Worksheet on my website at:
http://www.imahjong.com/g0maiarchives.html
(topic #207)
This 2nd draft covers some major changes in the terms and phrases since the
1st draft. It is intended that the final results of the Worksheet would be
incorporated in the next version of International Mahjong Rules and other
related documentation. I also plan to promote those terms and phrases once
the results are finalized.
As part of my long-term effort of promoting the concept of a world unified
mahjong game, in addition to the Worksheet, and in particular, I would like
to present the following items for public discussions before a conclusion of
use of the results of the Worksheet is reached. Feedback or comments on the
following items or on any items mentioned on the Worksheet are welcome.
1. Discussion about "Standardized English Terms" in mahjong:
In the mahjong newsgroup rec.games.mahjong I tried at least once in the past
to raise discussions about (and eventually reach a conclusion on) setting a
set of standardized English terms in mahjong. Obviously this seems to be
quite impossible. Since I have the control of International Mahjong Rules
I'll start with recommending and promoting those terms used in the IMJ Rules
and let the developments and evolutions start from there. A "List of
recommended English terms and phrases" is included in the Worksheet and
feedback and comments on those recommended terms and phrases are most
welcome.
Following are terms and phrases that are quite commonly used in the games of
mahjong that I want to bring forward as easy references for some quick
feedback and comments. Of course, feedback and comments on any item or
contents in the Worksheet are welcome.
1a. PAI [Non-capitalized. Plural: PAIS]
In my opinion, the term PAI (Chinese Pinyin is also PAI) is a proof that the
games of mahjong existed much earlier than the time when mahjong playing
pieces were first made in the form of TILES. Even today, the term PAI in
Chinese covers actually both mahjong cards and mahjong tiles or, in fact,
all forms of mahjong playing pieces. PAI is truly the best term to represent
the playing pieces of mahjong and I highly recommend its use as an
alternative to TILE.
1b. UNIO [First letter capitalized. Plural: UNIOS]
It's a combination of "unit" and "odd". In Chinese Pinyin, YAOJIU (one nine)
is used to represent ONE and NINE. However, in some occasions YAOJIU also
covers the "word pais" (e.g., pais of the WIND and the YOUTH). This has
proved to be confusing, although not a big issue. In the Worksheet, I
recommend the use of the term "UNIO" to solve the problem. In particular,
UNIO alone shall generally cover all of ONE, NINE, the WIND and the YOUTH,
while PURE UNIO shall cover ONE and NINE only.
[Examples: THIRTEEN UNIOS, PURE UNIOS, MIXED UNIOS. (Note: "Mixed Unios" is
a specific score element rather than a general expression of pais, hence the
extra word "Mixed".)]
1c. WIN, BANG, KONG, SEAM, DRAW, WALL, HEAD, TAIL, FLOOR [Non-capitalized]
These are acts and things that are fundamental in the game play of mahjong.
In particular, the first five terms are acts that are occurring every minute
in all mahjong games and in most cases players are required to speak out the
term when he is about to perform an act. It would be ideal (lovely) if a set
of these terms can be standardized worldwide. IMJ Rules has adopted a set of
terms for use as verb as well as noun, although these terms are quite
different from those "widely accepted English terms". As the author of the
IMJ Rules I can easily argue for the good of the use of these IMJ terms.
However, feedback, comments and discussions are always welcome.
1d. JONGA, NEXTA, OPPOSA, LEFTA [Non-capitalized]
By the inspiration of books on mahjong of the 1920s, readers of the English
publications are not normally aware of these terms (Chinese terms, of
course) that are in fact commonly used among Chinese speaking mahjong
players. In practice, one rarely calls the player on his right SOUTH
(assuming "he" himself is EAST). Use the term EAST to call a player may also
cause confusion and problem. It could be confusing if one refers himself as
EAST when in fact he is not the dealer (EAST of the game). These four terms
can be used with great flexibility in that they can be used to refer to
anyone at anytime and in all occasions.
1e. CHUCK, CHUCKER [Non-capitalized]
Again the Chinese term of CHUCKER is very commonly used in the Chinese
speaking community. In the English speaking world, as I primarily learned
from the mahjong newsgroup, people commonly used the term DISCARDER to
represent the same meaning of CHUCKER. I see that this use of DISCARDER is
wrong, or otherwise is imperfect or confusing. Anyone can discard a pai
without the need to have other player claiming that pai to win. Besides, I
have not seen an expression using a related term (DISCARDER, THROWER or
their alternative terms) as a verb. Use of the terms CHUCK and CHUCKER
instead of DISCARDER or THROWER is highly recommended.
1f. SELFMAKE, SELFMAKER [Non-capitalized]
Again, use of the term SELF-DRAW could be confusing as it is easily
understood that one can self-draw many times without a chance to win. The
term SELFMAKE combines the meaning of "self-draw" and "make it". Again, use
of the terms SELFMAKE and SELFMAKER instead of SELF-DRAW is highly
recommended.
1g. TOO FEW, TOO MANY [Non-capitalized]
Although these situations don't normally happen, the terms TOO FEW and TOO
MANY are also common among the Chinese speaking mahjong players. These terms
provide convenient ways to express the situations that would otherwise
require a lot of words to explain. Note that in the "List Of Recommended
English Terms And Phrases" in the Worksheet examples are provided to
demonstrate how these terms can be used as adjective or as noun.
2. Discussion about the "Scoring Mechanism" in mahjong:
In my 1st draft I have expressed my opinion on the scoring system and luck
factor, which is repeated below for easy references. Again some feedback,
comments or discussions on issues surrounding the scoring mechanism, scoring
and luck factor are welcome.
QUOTE
The new version of International Mahjong Rules remains using the "From Folds
To Scores" mechanism. The writer believes this mechanism remains an
important feature to help people learn and continue to play the game with
ease. A "Points Only" mechanism is where fixed scores are assigned to
specific score elements and the total score of a winning hand is calculated
by adding up all scores of all available score elements of the hand. While a
"Points Only" mechanism can precisely assess the "correct" value of a score
element based on the degree of difficulty in achieving it and can better
handle the "luck" factor, the mechanism also brings up great deal of
difficulty for players to learn and memorize the scoring details. It could
thus reduce the popularity of the game.
On the other hand, I believe the luck factor can also be properly handled in
a "From Folds To Scores" system by applying the following two strategies:
(a) by carefully adjusting the number of folds assigned to individual score
elements and (b) by setting different multiples for the scores according to
different ranking ranges. Strategy (a) may be seen in the proposed new
"Table Of Score Elements" attached to this Worksheet where I have reduced
the number of folds of certain highly "luck-related" score elements.
Strategy (b) is reflected in the Scoring Chart in the current version
(05.01.2001) of the IMJ Rules where winning hands with low ranks (1 to 6
folds) are assigned with comparatively lower scores (the multiple is 10) and
winning hands with higher ranks will enjoy Scores increased significantly
(the multiples are 20, 30, 40, 50 etc. as the number of folds increases).
Strategy (b) also rewards the effort of achieving higher ranks with skills,
as I believe winning hands of higher ranks are commonly achieved by those
having better skills and play strategies, and are less commonly achieved
merely by luck.
UNQUOTE
3. Discussion about the "Length Of Game Play" in mahjong tournaments:
Would one break (each "break" = "4 rounds") be too short, and two breaks too
long for the purposes of mahjong competition events? In my opinion 4 rounds
might be too short for a player to fully explore, understand and adjust to
other players' playing strategies. However, would 8 rounds be too long (may
last some 4 hours or more) in an open tournament event? Of course,
discussions shall also cover events conducted in households where time won't
seem to be an issue.
Cofa Tsui, Owner
International Mahjong Official Website
www.iMahjong.com
Nath Krishmaratala
> In the mahjong newsgroup rec.games.mahjong I tried at least once in the past
> to raise discussions about (and eventually reach a conclusion on) setting a
> set of standardized English terms in mahjong. Obviously this seems to be
> quite impossible. Since I have the control of International Mahjong Rules
> I'll start with recommending and promoting those terms used in the IMJ Rules
> and let the developments and evolutions start from there.
This matter was discussed. You tried to convince us of the necessity of
adopting your naming convention. Members of rec.games.mahjong told you
that the vocabulary of mahjong already exists and it evolves naturally
toward a commonly accepted set of English words. Calling "pai" what
everybody already know as a tile doesn't serve the mahjong community.
(Even you, you use the word "tile" when explaining the meaning of
"pai".) It only gives you a pretext to sell your trademarked products.
You didn't like this conclusion. It was impossible for you to accept it.
So today, you single-handedly proclaim your point of view as a
progressive step forward. You hope that, with time, every English
speaking player will adopt your gimmick to suit your ambition of
becoming the most influential person in the world of mahjong.
If, at a date set by you, IMJ becomes the mahjong equivalent of the
International Olympic Committee and you are acclaimed as the "Pierre de
Coubertin" of mahjong, I will offer you the most luxurious mahjong
*pais* ever build. But, if at the end of the term, you are still working
on pathetic attempts to gain fame and fortune, you'll send me a regular
set of *tiles*. Are you up to it?
Good luck
Nath
http://www.olympic.org/uk/passion/museum/permanent/coubertin/index_uk.asp
jcchimself
Cofa Tsui
news:Rreob.4375$G1.2...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> Cofa Tsui wrote:
>
> > In the mahjong newsgroup rec.games.mahjong I tried at least once in the
past
> > to raise discussions about (and eventually reach a conclusion on)
setting a
> > set of standardized English terms in mahjong. Obviously this seems to be
> > quite impossible. Since I have the control of International Mahjong
Rules
> > I'll start with recommending and promoting those terms used in the IMJ
Rules
> > and let the developments and evolutions start from there.
>
> This matter was discussed. You tried to convince us of the necessity of
> adopting your naming convention. Members of rec.games.mahjong told you
> that the vocabulary of mahjong already exists and it evolves naturally
> toward a commonly accepted set of English words. Calling "pai" what
> everybody already know as a tile doesn't serve the mahjong community.
> (Even you, you use the word "tile" when explaining the meaning of
> "pai".) It only gives you a pretext to sell your trademarked products.
Hello Nath, thanks for your comments. As far as I know, a formal discussion
on the related topic has never established. It was raised but just could not
proceed. I don't know how large the "mahjong community" you are referring
to, or how large you expect it could actually be. A set of standardized
terms is just a small part of the whole development for the mahjong players
to be truly a worldwide community. Besides, you mentioned that things
mahjong are used to be EVOLVING, I just think that making it DEVELOP should
be a way to go in this modern world.
Also, you might have misunderstood my intention. Although I do have a
trademarked product in mahjong to promote, it doesn't and shouldn't prevent
anybody from discussing the world unified mahjong standards, which could be
applied to products with any brand name. If you think things mahjong should
stand still at where they are at today, or if you prefer they should continu
e to EVOLVE freely as they have been since long time ago, this discussion
might not be for you.
The discussions I intended are for the standards of a world unified mahjong
in general, not specific to any brand name. You and those who hesitate in
participating in the discussions might be uncomfortable because the
discussion is raised by me who happens to have a brand name to promote. But
if not me, who else do you see who has organized discussions of this type?
By the way, I did not use "tile" to explain the term "pai". I meant "tile"
should be part of it.
>
> You didn't like this conclusion. It was impossible for you to accept it.
> So today, you single-handedly proclaim your point of view as a
> progressive step forward. You hope that, with time, every English
> speaking player will adopt your gimmick to suit your ambition of
> becoming the most influential person in the world of mahjong.
If there were a formal conclusion, which I believe would be beneficial to
all authors and developers of different brand names of mahjong games, I
would definitely consider to go with it! As to your other comments, they are
quite true, but practically!
>
> If, at a date set by you, IMJ becomes the mahjong equivalent of the
> International Olympic Committee and you are acclaimed as the "Pierre de
> Coubertin" of mahjong, I will offer you the most luxurious mahjong
> *pais* ever build. But, if at the end of the term, you are still working
> on pathetic attempts to gain fame and fortune, you'll send me a regular
> set of *tiles*. Are you up to it?
Well, life is full of gambling, why don't you set the standards of all the
aspects of your challenge, and I'll see if I could set a date for it ^_^
Thanks again!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Nath Krishmaratala
> Hello Nath, thanks for your comments. As far as I know, a formal discussion
> on the related topic has never established. It was raised but just could not
> proceed.
Hello Cofa,
The subject was discussed many times but each time somebody told you
your idea wasn't so great you stopped at it.
Some random feedbacks to your proposed terminology found with a simple
Google Groups search:
"Yes, it would [be nice if the vocabulary of mahjong would be the same
all over the world.] Which is exactly my point. We need /less/ terms
for things, not /more/. Since there are already several
language-specific terminology systems in place, we ought to use those
rather than create new ones. "- (3 Jul 1998, ACTSEARCH)
"I entirely disagree that [a standardized set of English terms should be
created in such a way that (a) each terms are pronounced as close to the
corresponding Chinese term as possible; and (b) have similar meaning of
the corresponding Chinese term.]"- (1 Apr 2003, Julian Bratfield)
"Sure, as a mathematical teenager obsessed with consistency and
order[...] I wanted to standardize Mah-Jong; but having grown up, I find
the human aspects of Mah-Jong, in particular the way it varies and
evolves, add greatly to the interest of the game."- (1 Apr 2003, Julian
Bratfield)
"The IMJ despite written good intentions, is a cultural bane to China
and completely deromantasizes playing mahjong (if one plays by their
system) through the incorporation of such a ridiculous naming scheme."-
(22 May 2003, Jesse)
"[...]imposing revised terms upon the English-speaking mah-jongg world
as a whole is doomed to failure from the start, and would thus be a
pointless exercise."- (4 Apr 2003, Tom Sloper)
I cannot agree with everything said about your proposal. I surely agree
a standardization of mahjong terms cannot hurt. But it is obvious you're
the only one who thinks the World needs "unios", "pais", "jongas",
"nextas", "opposas", etc. to improve the English terminology of mahjong.
"Yes, a standardized lexicon will make communication between players
easier, but inventing a new, unified, language will not cure incoherent
rules of play and scoring. Using the name "pie" or "pai" instead of
"tile" won't improve the inner working of the game. It's only a way of
calling things differently only for the sake of making sure your variant
of Mahjong is different enough to be eligible for a trademark patent."-
(8 sept 2003, Nath)
At least since 1998, you tried to sell IMJ to players and game
manufacturers. Nobody bought it. No book presented IMJ as the way
mahjong should be played. No international tournament considered using
your system. No store sold IMJ sets. No player association uses your
rules. IMJ is nothing but a failure of a world gathering mahjong.
> I don't know how large the "mahjong community" you are referring
> to, or how large you expect it could actually be.
For sure, it is larger than a single guy who represents nobody but
himself and sells his stuff under the misleading name of
"International(sic) Mahjong". On your own website *you* estimated that
"the world's total population of mahjong players could
be over 98 million players." (rec.games.mahjong, 17 Nov 2002) One could
hope that an *international* set of rules could at least be use in
several countries by millions of players. Never outside your little
groups of friends has anybody adopted your terminology nor your game
system. Maybe not even your friends... Your variant of mahjong should be
called Cofa Tsui's Mahjong, not World Unified or International Mahjong.
> If you think things mahjong should stand still at where they are at today,
> or if you prefer they should continue to EVOLVE freely
> as they have been since long time ago, this discussion
> might not be for you.
Putting a commercial trademark on the expression "International
Mahjong", forbidding it use even in non-profit situations, stubbornly
trying to sell a system nobody wants, refusing to give control to
non-profit organization directed by a community of players, is not what
I call an evolution nor a development toward a world unified mahjong. It
only a selfish attempt to make a buck.
> [...] You and those who hesitate in participating in the discussions [...]
If one thing I didn't do is to be shy and not tell you what I think
about IMJ.
> But if not me, who else do you see who has organized discussions of this type?
The good question would be "Who else but you thinks IMJ Terminology is a
great solution to a crucial problem?"
> If there were a formal conclusion, which I believe would be beneficial to
> all authors and developers of different brand names of mahjong games, I
> would definitely consider to go with it!
As you know, at least since 1999, in the FAQ there is an inventory of
all the words used by authors and developers of different brand names of
mahjong games. -> Rosetta stone, FAQ 6. "I Need A Unified Set of
Mah-Jongg Terms!" http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq/mjfaq06.htm
Let see what English speaking authors have adopted to describe a tile
since the early 1920's :
* Babcock......Tile (or piece)
* Bell.........Tile (or piece)
* BMJA.........Tile
* Carkner......Tile
* Constantino..Tile
* Glass........Tile
* Huang........Tile
* IMJ..........Pie (or pai)!!
* K & F........Tile
* Kohnen.......Tile
* Li...........Tile
* Lo...........Tile
* Millington...Tile
* MJM..........Tile
* NMJL.........Tile
* P & C........Tile
* Pritchard....Tile
* Robertson....Tile
* S & E........Tile
* Shanghai.....Tile
* T & M........Tile
* Tjoa.........Tile
* Whitney......Tile
* Willoughby...Tile
* WPAFB........Tile
* Wu...........Tile
There is only one exception : you! You insist to use "Pai" or "pie"
because they sound like the Chinese word for tiles.
>>If, at a date set by you, IMJ becomes the mahjong equivalent of the
>>International Olympic Committee and you are acclaimed as the "Pierre de
>>Coubertin" of mahjong, I will offer you the most luxurious mahjong
>>*pais* ever build. But, if at the end of the term, you are still working
>>on pathetic attempts to gain fame and fortune, you'll send me a regular
>>set of *tiles*. Are you up to it?
>
>
> Well, life is full of gambling, why don't you set the standards of all the
> aspects of your challenge, and I'll see if I could set a date for it ^_^
When the official rules of international tournaments held in the vast
majority of English speaking countries will be those of IMJ, or when 980
000 (1% of 98 millions) IMJ sets are sold, I will consider you have won.
At what conditions will you consider yourself beaten?
I wait anxiously for your answer
Nath
Cofa Tsui
Thanks Nath for the effort of researching those records. One will see
whether a formal discussion had ever been held, or a discussion of this
topic was just refused (claimed unnecessary) when it was raised.
>
> > I don't know how large the "mahjong community" you are referring
> > to, or how large you expect it could actually be.
>
> For sure, it is larger than a single guy who represents nobody but
> himself and sells his stuff under the misleading name of
> "International(sic) Mahjong". On your own website *you* estimated that
> "the world's total population of mahjong players could
> be over 98 million players." (rec.games.mahjong, 17 Nov 2002) One could
> hope that an *international* set of rules could at least be use in
> several countries by millions of players. Never outside your little
> groups of friends has anybody adopted your terminology nor your game
> system. Maybe not even your friends... Your variant of mahjong should be
> called Cofa Tsui's Mahjong, not World Unified or International Mahjong.
[snipped]
Clear enough is the fact that International Mahjong is always emphasized as
a registered trademark. If you could point out any mistake that led you felt
you were misled please feel free to let me know, I'll definitely correct it!
As a matter of fact, I and the contents of my website have never meant to
mislead anyone. And, as far as I know I have never misled anyone - ANY
SAYING TO THIS CONTRARY IS IN FACT MISLEADING BY ITSELF!
My website is only selling my concepts about mahjong products and services
bearing the trademark INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG. If you consider it as a name
that concerns only one person, why are you bothered? Why do you attack this
name when there is no intention of bringing any harm to you?
Again thanks for your effort researching the records. If there were ever a
formal discussion, a question would have been asked: "Would TILE also cover
mahjong cards?" When the first author who translated the English term TILE,
the alternative of mahjong playing pieces other than tiles had certainly NOT
been aware of.
>
> >>If, at a date set by you, IMJ becomes the mahjong equivalent of the
> >>International Olympic Committee and you are acclaimed as the "Pierre de
> >>Coubertin" of mahjong, I will offer you the most luxurious mahjong
> >>*pais* ever build. But, if at the end of the term, you are still working
> >>on pathetic attempts to gain fame and fortune, you'll send me a regular
> >>set of *tiles*. Are you up to it?
> >
> >
> > Well, life is full of gambling, why don't you set the standards of all
the
> > aspects of your challenge, and I'll see if I could set a date for it ^_^
>
> When the official rules of international tournaments held in the vast
> majority of English speaking countries will be those of IMJ, or when 980
> 000 (1% of 98 millions) IMJ sets are sold, I will consider you have won.
> At what conditions will you consider yourself beaten?
>
> I wait anxiously for your answer
Could you show me more details how you compare and justify this challenge
("When the official rules of international tournaments held in the vast
majority of English speaking countries will be those of IMJ, or when 980000
(1% of 98 millions) IMJ sets are sold") with your original quote ("the
mahjong equivalent of the International Olympic Committee and you are
acclaimed as the "Pierre de Coubertin" of mahjong")? Could you also point
out the real natures of these two quotes?
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Nath Krishmaratala
> If you consider [International Mahjong] as a name that concerns only
> one person, why are you bothered?
If you had called your house rules "Cofa's Mahjong" I wouldn't be
bothered. But, the name you chose implies it concerns or belongs to all
or at least two or more nations.
> Would TILE also cover mahjong cards?
Don't even try to start a debate about nothing. When an author talks
about tiles, he means tiles. When he talks about cards, he is talking
about cards. When he writes about cards and tiles, he is talking about
cards and tiles. It's that simple. We don't have to reinvent the English
language.
> Could you show me more details how you compare and justify this challenge
> ("When the official rules of international tournaments held in the vast
> majority of English speaking countries will be those of IMJ, or when 980000
> (1% of 98 millions) IMJ sets are sold") with your original quote ("the
> mahjong equivalent of the International Olympic Committee and you are
> acclaimed as the "Pierre de Coubertin" of mahjong")? Could you also point
> out the real natures of these two quotes?
The original quote is obviously a metaphor. The second quote is the
standards you asked for.
Should we understand that you shy away from the challenge? Have you
suddenly lost faith in IMJ?
Nick Roworth
> Cofa Tsui wrote:
>
I am not sure why these jokers are cross posting to rec.games.board and
uk.games.board, but the rules are a real laugh.
Pies, mats, tanks and a winning hand with a pair of socks.
NiC
Cofa Tsui
> Cofa Tsui wrote:
> > If you consider [International Mahjong] as a name that concerns only
> > one person, why are you bothered?
>
> If you had called your house rules "Cofa's Mahjong" I wouldn't be
> bothered. But, the name you chose implies it concerns or belongs to all
> or at least two or more nations.
Over ten years ago, when I told others I wanted to develop a game called
INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG to be played by people internationally, I was told I
was about to create a game called "Cofa Tsui Mahjong" and nobody just cared!
When you have the concept "mahjong would never be an international game"
(like many in the mahjong newsgroup still had some years ago) [or when you
DON'T have the concept that "mahjong could be designed and promoted to be an
international game"], you'll never be bothered by this brand name!
The name INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG being registered as a trademark was just a
record of the creation of a new concept about mahjong. This is a very common
business practice. If people over ten years ago didn't care, why do you
today? Does it mean the concept was right? Or only the name was wrong?
> > Would TILE also cover mahjong cards?
>
> Don't even try to start a debate about nothing. When an author talks
> about tiles, he means tiles. When he talks about cards, he is talking
> about cards. When he writes about cards and tiles, he is talking about
> cards and tiles. It's that simple. We don't have to reinvent the English
> language.
No problem. And, why bother, since you don't think the discussion is
necessary!
>
> > Could you show me more details how you compare and justify this
challenge
> > ("When the official rules of international tournaments held in the vast
> > majority of English speaking countries will be those of IMJ, or when
980000
> > (1% of 98 millions) IMJ sets are sold") with your original quote ("the
> > mahjong equivalent of the International Olympic Committee and you are
> > acclaimed as the "Pierre de Coubertin" of mahjong")? Could you also
point
> > out the real natures of these two quotes?
>
> The original quote is obviously a metaphor. The second quote is the
> standards you asked for.
These are the standards you set...
>
> Should we understand that you shy away from the challenge? Have you
> suddenly lost faith in IMJ?
My trademarks INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG and IMJ come together with the concept
of a mahjong game to be played by people internationally. They (including
the concept) were all new over ten years ago. Today, I am seeing things are
getting towards what I had proposed before. These should be the natures
behind the challenge that you should not ignore. You emphasize more on the
figures, I see that the nature is more important. Are we not on the same
bet?
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Cofa Tsui
news:vtKob.1$Dt4...@news.oracle.com...
You have a good point! Thanks.
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Nath Krishmaratala
> Over ten years ago, when I told others I wanted to develop a game called
> INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG to be played by people internationally, I was told I
> was about to create a game called "Cofa Tsui Mahjong" and nobody just cared!
Wow! Ten years of development, a bold name change and still nobody cares.
> When you have the concept "mahjong would never be an international game"
> (like many in the mahjong newsgroup still had some years ago) [or when you
> DON'T have the concept that "mahjong could be designed and promoted to be an
> international game"], you'll never be bothered by this brand name!
LOL. As if nobody before you wished mahjong was standardized. As if
nobody before you tried. As if taking plain old Hong Kong Mahjong,
replacing common English words by Chinese sounding terms and changing
the picture designs on the tiles to secure trademarks was equivalent to
making mahjong international.
Mahjong is played around the Globe. The real challenge is to find a set
of rules so appealing that everybody will start playing with this only
one. How many players did you seduced with IMJ? Since you wrapped Hong
Hong Mahjong in your design, how many other variants disappeared because
yours was superior?
> This is a very common business practice.
So is paying taxes, raising prices and laying off workers. What's your
point?
> If people over ten years ago didn't care, why do you today?
I am not people over ten years ago. Ten year ago is not now.
> Does it mean the concept was right?
No. It only means I disapprove your business practice.
> Or only the name was wrong?
It's not a case of one or the other. Both are wrong.
> My trademarks INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG and IMJ come together with the concept
> of a mahjong game to be played by people internationally.
We will know how well you achieved this goal by asking "How many people
play it internationally?" This the core of the challenge I proposed you,
and you still have not accepted.
> The name INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG being registered as a trademark was
> just a record of the creation of a new concept about mahjong.
Which new concept? Translating Chinese terms into English? Babcock did
that in late 1910's. Attempting to standardize the rules? Babcock did
that in the 1920's. Deposing a trademark? Babcock did that with
"Mah-jongg". Changing the pictures on the Chinese tiles to make them
simpler for Occidentals? Babcock did that...
It's only the record of you trying to make a buck with repackaging Hong
Kong Mahjong.
> They (including
> the concept) were all new over ten years ago. Today, I am seeing things are
> getting towards what I had proposed before. These should be the natures
> behind the challenge that you should not ignore.
LOL. "Judging the success of IMJ based on how many players use it in the
World is ignoring the international nature of it" is the most fallacious
argument you came up with so far.
Once again you shy away from establishing a way of evaluating once for
all the value of IMJ. Come up with objective scale or I'll conclude IMJ
is only worth your sentimental feelings toward it.
> Are we not on the same bet?
Are you willing to bet or you will continue side-stepping maneuvers forever?
Nath Krishmaratala
> I am not sure why these jokers are cross posting to rec.games.board and
> uk.games.board, but the rules are a real laugh.
>
> Pies, mats, tanks and a winning hand with a pair of socks.
Because Cofa craves publicity. The poor guy started this in 1990. In 13
years, he managed to secure the trademarks, he spent a lot of energy
(maybe even money), but still nobody plays with his house rules. If he
could justify cross posting in rec.food.recipe and alt.tanks, I think he
probably would.
Cofa Tsui
> Cofa Tsui wrote:
> > Over ten years ago, when I told others I wanted to develop a game called
> > INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG to be played by people internationally, I was told
I
> > was about to create a game called "Cofa Tsui Mahjong" and nobody just
cared!
>
> Wow! Ten years of development, a bold name change and still nobody cares.
[Hello, is someone called "Nath Krishmaratala" here?]
> > If people over ten years ago didn't care, why do you today?
>
> I am not people over ten years ago. Ten year ago is not now.
[Based on this answer, and other replies from Nath, I don't see any reason
why I should continue to respond to the trademark issue.]
>
> > My trademarks INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG and IMJ come together with the
concept
> > of a mahjong game to be played by people internationally.
>
> We will know how well you achieved this goal by asking "How many people
> play it internationally?" This the core of the challenge I proposed you,
> and you still have not accepted.
That's why I said we are not on the same bet. Mahjong being played
internationally *by a standardized rule set* (*that part I have missed in
the past message) was my concept I tried to promote. I see that things are
getting towards this trend nowadays. As to the rules bearing my trademarks,
I am still working on my goals with a vision. You have your concept of your
own challenge, I have my concept of what I am doing - We are obviously not
on the same topic - These trademarks shouldn't even bother you. Why should I
follow your concept?
>
> > The name INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG being registered as a trademark was
> > just a record of the creation of a new concept about mahjong.
>
> Which new concept? Translating Chinese terms into English? Babcock did
> that in late 1910's. Attempting to standardize the rules? Babcock did
> that in the 1920's. Deposing a trademark? Babcock did that with
> "Mah-jongg". Changing the pictures on the Chinese tiles to make them
> simpler for Occidentals? Babcock did that...
Badcock made all things mahjong new to America - Hence the trademark
MAH-JONGG in America. Since then, mahjong has been further developed in
different parts of the world, in an uncontrolled manner. Mahjong being
played internationally *by a standardized rule set* (*that part I have
missed in the past message) was different, hence the trademark INTERNATIONAL
MAHJONG. No matter what your arguments, the records of these creations were
there.
>
> It's only the record of you trying to make a buck with repackaging Hong
> Kong Mahjong.
This is also true. What's wrong with that?
>
> > They (including
> > the concept) were all new over ten years ago. Today, I am seeing things
are
> > getting towards what I had proposed before. These should be the natures
> > behind the challenge that you should not ignore.
>
> LOL. "Judging the success of IMJ based on how many players use it in the
> World is ignoring the international nature of it" is the most fallacious
> argument you came up with so far.
I did not say that! Instead, you are just trying to separate my package into
small parts, and wanting to just bet on one part and ignoring the others!
Why should I follow your rule?
>
> Once again you shy away from establishing a way of evaluating once for
> all the value of IMJ. Come up with objective scale or I'll conclude IMJ
> is only worth your sentimental feelings toward it.
>
> > Are we not on the same bet?
>
> Are you willing to bet or you will continue side-stepping maneuvers
forever?
What makes you so sure about your statement that I am shying away?
Nath, I can see that you have a very strong talent in debate. However,
attacking others and trying to force your rules on your opponents are just
not good techniques, and I won't buy those. Whatever you say will not change
the facts about the registered trademarks, and the effort of me continuing
working on my visions.
Perhaps, a bet based on the visions I posted on my website
(http://www.imahjong.com/g3mbs.html) may be something I don't mind going
with. My ultimate goal is "a worldwide game of mahjong played by one common
set of standardized rules, thus allowing games to be organized and
participated by people around the world, and records of scores and worldwide
ranking of players to be centrally maintained and internationally
recognized". How that "worldwide game" is being called doesn't really
matter. Could you come up with a more fair challenge based on this?
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Nath Krishmaratala
> [Hello, is someone called "Nath Krishmaratala" here?]
Surely the same someone who proclaimed you the guardian of the unified
world of mahjong.
> That's why I said we are not on the same bet. Mahjong being played
> internationally *by a standardized rule set* (*that part I have missed in
> the past message) was my concept I tried to promote. I see that things are
> getting towards this trend nowadays. As to the rules bearing my trademarks,
> I am still working on my goals with a vision.
> [...]
> Today, I am seeing things are getting towards what I had proposed
What *results* do you have to show us? Does any international or
national mahjong authority adopted your house rules? Not a single one.
Did your house rules spawned international regroupements of players? Not
a single one. Does anyone play with your house rules internationally?
Nobody. Are IMJ sets sold in the world? No. Where IMJ sets manufactured
in the world? Nowhere. Who with international credibility cited IMJ as
an influence in mahjong trends? Nobody.
> Whatever you say will not change
> the facts about the registered trademarks, and the effort of me
> continuing working on my visions.
I think you want so badly to cash in on the popularity of mahjong that
your visions are in fact illusions. Everything would be "Oh so
wonderfully great!" if you could became rich and famous with mahjong.
You think it's worth the time, the effort and the sacrifices. IMJ has
become your elusive Eldorado. You wonder why people are so dumb not to
see the greatness of your "vision". You feel misunderstood. But you
think with assiduous work and the little help of chance eventually
you'll achieve your dream. If only everybody would stop asking for
results. They should instead concentrate on the benefits of you
succeeding. The end is justification enough. Ultimately, you'll prevail
of this unjust adversity by pure will-power and self-control.
>>It's only the record of you trying to make a buck with repackaging Hong
>>Kong Mahjong.
>
>
> This is also true. What's wrong with that?
Repackaging an already existing game and calling it a new game concept
is self-contradictory. Giving to the mahjong players of the World a game
they could call it their own is incompatible with selfishly refusing to
let it go. You make it evident, either you don't care at all about the
principles of internationalization of mahjong, or that at any rate you
do care about something else more. Either you want to create a universal
rule set *above all* for the benefit of mahjong, or *above all* to
become rich. Obviously you are more preoccupied by trademarks and
commercial advantages than by creating an association of players.
> [...] you are just trying to separate my package into
> small parts, and wanting to just bet on one part and ignoring the others!
How testing the virtues of IMJ on a objective scale is missing the point
of IMJ? What essential innovative parts we obviously ignored when we
asked you to prove the superiority of your house rules? What wonderful
quality emerges from IMJ as a whole that doesn't exist in any other
attempt to standardize or popularize mahjong?
> Why should I follow your rule?
Because they are *not* my rules, but because visions and concepts are
only as good as they measure up to reality checks and how they survive
once stripped of self-contradictions.
>>Once again you shy away from establishing a way of evaluating once for
>>all the value of IMJ. Come up with objective scale or I'll conclude IMJ
>>is only worth your sentimental feelings toward it.
>
> [...]
>
> What makes you so sure about your statement that I am shying away?
Nothing about *my* statement make me sure you are shying away. But, your
unwillingness to commit to a reality check does. You haven't come up with
an objective scale. All you do is to repeat that you have a "vision".
> Nath, I can see that you have a very strong talent in debate. However,
> attacking others and trying to force your rules on your opponents are just
> not good techniques, and I won't buy those.
I am not attacking others. I'm challenging your beliefs about IMJ. You
dislike me because you are confronted with the eventuality of IMJ been
only a dream. It's painful to loose one's illusion.
> Perhaps, a bet based on the visions I posted on my website
> (http://www.imahjong.com/g3mbs.html) may be something I don't mind going
> with. My ultimate goal is "a worldwide game of mahjong played by one common
> set of standardized rules, thus allowing games to be organized and
> participated by people around the world, and records of scores and worldwide
> ranking of players to be centrally maintained and internationally
> recognized". How that "worldwide game" is being called doesn't really
> matter.
Perhaps...may be...a challenge based not necessarily on IMJ but on a
generally vague idea of what a "worldwide game" could be!?
In other words, you don't have enough faith in IMJ to score well in a
test that would measure objectively it's pragmatic conformity to the
stated "ultimate goal". You hope to postpone the bet indefinitely or to
win it based on an abstraction. The same way you can't expect to win at
head or tail by betting on the existence of coins, you can't declare IMJ
a winner because the concept of a "worldwide game" is conceivable.
By the way, if you want http://www.imahjong.com/ to be more truthful you
should published something more like this:
"The main purpose of this website is to promote my brand of Mahjong. I
dream to become rich and famous by developing and selling the IMJ
registered trademark. I hope someday IMJ licensed products will be sold
all over the World, making me the most influential person in recent
Mahjong history. I mainly replaced common English words by Chinese
sounding terms (because it pleases me) and changed the pictures on the
tiles (because this way I can put them under trademark protection). The
scoring system and the rules are similar to the myriad of other house
rules. Please feel free to browse through articles of this website and
let me have your feedback. Comments, suggestions and criticism are all
welcome. (but your opinions won't change a thing if I dislike them)
Bookmark this page and come back often; I need publicity and attention.
INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG and IMJ are only commercial trademarks. They are
not, what so ever, linked to an official regulating body or a players
association. They are a one man's operation."
> Could you come up with a more fair challenge based on this?
You refused all challenges proposed by me, even thought they are good
test to see how well IMJ is accepted as an internationnaly recognized
set of standardized rules. Now your turn.
Nath
Tom Sloper
>I am not attacking others. I'm challenging your beliefs about IMJ. You
>dislike me because you are confronted with the eventuality of IMJ been
>only a dream. It's painful to loose one's illusion.
I am reminded of a wonderful line from The Simpsons. It was Nelson Muntz who
uttered those immortal words: "Some of us prefer illusion to despair."
(^_^)
Tom
P.S. I am not crossposting this to any board game newsgroups.
Nath Krishmaratala
> I am reminded of a wonderful line from The Simpsons. It was Nelson Muntz who
> uttered those immortal words: "Some of us prefer illusion to despair."
Very strange. Me, it reminds me of a wonderful comment from a
respectable author (sorry, I can't remember his name). He was watching
"Walking With Cavemen" on the Discovery Channel and was taken by one
line of narration in particular. The narrator was talking about Homo
Heidelbergensis: "They see the world only as it is, and cannot imagine a
better version of it." By contrast, this author taught, some of us are
so highly evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis that they can only see the
world as it ideally should be... they cannot see the world as it is!
(^_^)
Tom Sloper
>>> It's painful to loose one's illusion.
Tom Sloper wrote:
>> I am reminded of a wonderful line from The Simpsons. It was Nelson Muntz
who
>> uttered those immortal words: "Some of us prefer illusion to despair."
From: Nath Krishmaratala
>Very strange. Me, it reminds me of a wonderful comment from a
>respectable author (sorry, I can't remember his name). He was watching
>"Walking With Cavemen" on the Discovery Channel and was taken by one
>line of narration in particular. The narrator was talking about Homo
>Heidelbergensis: "They see the world only as it is, and cannot imagine a
>better version of it." By contrast, this author taught, some of us are
>so highly evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis that they can only see the
>world as it ideally should be... they cannot see the world as it is!
>
>(^_^)
That too is a very apropos quote. Sounds familiar, but I can't quite place
it...
(~_^)
Cofa Tsui
news:KrHpb.101381$Tr4.274713@attbi_s03...
Those quotes are quite amusing! Quite fair enough, however, illusions and
workable visions are quite different, and it's also true that things in the
world are ever changing with new ideas being constantly created. The world
will never stand still!
Just as an example, in 1999 in response to my concept of a world unified
mahjong, someone had said: "IMO, /no/ amount of 'promotion,' in and of
itself, will ever get the players of the 15 or 16 different major varieties
of MJ to destroy the 'Tower Of MJ Babel' and join together in one unified
way of playing." Everyone now knows this opinion has been beaten by the
event of the World Championship In Mahjong 2002 held in Tokyo, and by the
one who had said this opinion and participated in the event. Isn't it
amazing!
In a previous message Nath wrote:
>
> What *results* do you have to show us? Does any international or
> national mahjong authority adopted your house rules? Not a single one.
> Did your house rules spawned international regroupements of players? Not
> a single one. Does anyone play with your house rules internationally?
> Nobody. Are IMJ sets sold in the world? No. Where IMJ sets manufactured
> in the world? Nowhere. Who with international credibility cited IMJ as
> an influence in mahjong trends? Nobody.
I will quote my previous messages as a reply:
> > That's why I said we are not on the same bet. Mahjong being played
> > internationally *by a standardized rule set* (*that part I have missed
in
> > the past message) was my concept I tried to promote. I see that things
are
> > getting towards this trend nowadays. As to the rules bearing my
trademarks,
> > I am still working on my goals with a vision.
> > Whatever you say will not change
> > the facts about the registered trademarks, and the effort of me
> > continuing working on my visions.
I also would like to remind Nath of these messages,
> > Nath, I can see that you have a very strong talent in debate. However,
> > attacking others and trying to force your rules on your opponents are
just
> > not good techniques, and I won't buy those.
>
> I am not attacking others. I'm challenging your beliefs about IMJ. You
> dislike me because you are confronted with the eventuality of IMJ been
> only a dream. It's painful to loose one's illusion.
>
> > Perhaps, a bet based on the visions I posted on my website
> > (http://www.imahjong.com/g3mbs.html) may be something I don't mind going
> > with. My ultimate goal is "a worldwide game of mahjong played by one
common
> > set of standardized rules, thus allowing games to be organized and
> > participated by people around the world, and records of scores and
worldwide
> > ranking of players to be centrally maintained and internationally
> > recognized". How that "worldwide game" is being called doesn't really
> > matter.
>
> > Could you come up with a more fair challenge based on this?
... and see that Nath doesn't seem to be able to come up with a fair
challenge based on my concept (not on Nath's rule), may I suggest the bet be
put up like any of these:
(1) Since you wanted to measure my success with some figures and quoted the
following to prove my failure:
> What *results* do you have to show us? Does any international or
> national mahjong authority adopted your house rules? Not a single one.
> Did your house rules spawned international regroupements of players? Not
> a single one. Does anyone play with your house rules internationally?
> Nobody. Are IMJ sets sold in the world? No. Where IMJ sets manufactured
> in the world? Nowhere. Who with international credibility cited IMJ as
> an influence in mahjong trends? Nobody.
Would you consider I win if I could give an answer of YES to any of the
above questions, in a given period of time?
(2) As to a bet based on the visions I posted on my website
(http://www.imahjong.com/g3mbs.html), that is, to test the degree of my
belief and faith in my visions, would you consider I win if any of the names
INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG, INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG RULES or IMJ RULES is ever
associated with any international tournament of mahjong, in a given period
of time?
How long would that "given period of time" be fair?
Since my website has long been only a conceptual website, your (Nath's) bet
will now certainly push me up with working hard on my visions seriously...
(Well, I'm just kidding!)
Since my website has long been only a conceptual website, and today I am
seeing things are getting towards what I had proposed, I have started
working systematically on realizing my visions. How about by June 30, 2005
if you want to bet on group (1); or by the end of 2006 if you want to bet on
group (2)?
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Tom Sloper
>in 1999 in response to my concept of a world unified
>mahjong, someone had said: "IMO, /no/ amount of 'promotion,' in and of
>itself, will ever get the players of the 15 or 16 different major varieties
>of MJ to destroy the 'Tower Of MJ Babel' and join together in one unified
>way of playing." Everyone now knows this opinion has been beaten by the
>event of the World Championship In Mahjong 2002 held in Tokyo, and by the
>one who had said this opinion and participated in the event.
The players use those tournament rules to play in those tournaments. Then
when they go home they go back to playing according to the local custom. We
still aren't seeing local rules dying off in favor of a unified mah-jongg.
Nath Krishmaratala
> illusions and workable visions are quite different
This is my point from the start. (^_^)
And the way to distinguish one from the other is to seek tangible proof.
> Just as an example, in 1999 in response to my concept of a world unified
> mahjong, someone had said: "IMO, /no/ amount of 'promotion,' in and of
> itself, will ever get the players of the 15 or 16 different major varieties
> of MJ to destroy the 'Tower Of MJ Babel' and join together in one unified
> way of playing." Everyone now knows this opinion has been beaten by the
> event of the World Championship In Mahjong 2002 held in Tokyo, and by the
> one who had said this opinion and participated in the event. Isn't it
> amazing!
The event, as amazing it was, was a singularity. WCMJ hasn't won over
any of the 15+ major mahjong varieties.
> How about by June 30, 2005 if you want to bet on group (1);
> or by the end of 2006 if you want to bet on group (2)?
Hurray! At last, you are willing to submit your "visions" to a reality
check.
Yes, I would consider you win (a) if, by the end of 2006, IMJ rules are
the official standardized rules for international mahjong tournaments,
or (b) if, by June 30, 2005, INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG is the recognized
regulating body of mahjong all over the world.
Good luck. And keep us informed if any of your "visions" becomes a reality.
Nath Krishmaratala
Nath Krishmaratala
> That too is a very apropos quote. Sounds familiar, but I can't quite place
> it...
About a similar topic, I recommend you "The Situation Is Hopeless, but
Not Serious : The Pursuit of Unhappiness" by Paul Watzlawick. The first
chapter, "This Above All : To Thine Own Self Be True", might interest you.
You can read it at :
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0393310213/ref=sib_rdr_ex/104-3888314-7946360?p=S004#reader-page
Cofa Tsui
[...]
>
> > How about by June 30, 2005 if you want to bet on group (1);
> > or by the end of 2006 if you want to bet on group (2)?
>
> Hurray! At last, you are willing to submit your "visions" to a reality
> check.
I always have that will for the bet but just won't go with the concept and
rule set by you ^_^
>
> Yes, I would consider you win (a) if, by the end of 2006, IMJ rules are
> the official standardized rules for international mahjong tournaments,
> or (b) if, by June 30, 2005, INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG is the recognized
> regulating body of mahjong all over the world.
NO! Your challenge has to be in the wording I previously provided or has the
same meaning as that. I can repeat the messages below for your easy
reference:
(1) Since you wanted to measure my success with some figures and quoted the
following to prove my failure:
> What *results* do you have to show us? Does any international or
> national mahjong authority adopted your house rules? Not a single one.
> Did your house rules spawned international regroupements of players? Not
> a single one. Does anyone play with your house rules internationally?
> Nobody. Are IMJ sets sold in the world? No. Where IMJ sets manufactured
> in the world? Nowhere. Who with international credibility cited IMJ as
> an influence in mahjong trends? Nobody.
Would you consider I win if I could give an answer of YES to any of the
above questions, *by June 30, 2005*?
(2) As to a bet based on the visions I posted on my website
(http://www.imahjong.com/g3mbs.html), that is, to test the degree of my
belief and faith in my visions, would you consider I win if any of the names
INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG, INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG RULES or IMJ RULES is ever
associated with any international tournament of mahjong, *by the end of
2006*?
Also, am I considered win if any of these challenges is met?
You could drop any or both challenges if you are afraid of the bet. (I won't
bite back, guaranteed!)
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
Nath Krishmaratala
>>Yes, I would consider you win (a) if, by the end of 2006, IMJ rules are
>>the official standardized rules for international mahjong tournaments,
>>or (b) if, by June 30, 2005, INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG is the recognized
>>regulating body of mahjong all over the world.
>
>
> NO!
Do you realize that you have admitted that, even given enough time, IMJ
rules WON'T be official standardized rules for international mahjong
tournaments and INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG WON'T be an internationally
recognized regulating body, in direct contradiction with IMJ goals and
purposes? No one could have done a clearer demonstration of
self-contradiction.
> Your challenge has to be in the wording I previously provided or has the
> same meaning as that. I can repeat the messages below for your easy
> reference:
>
> (1) Since you wanted to measure my success with some figures and quoted the
> following to prove my failure:
>
>
>>What *results* do you have to show us? Does any international or
>>national mahjong authority adopted your house rules? Not a single one.
>>Did your house rules spawned international regroupements of players? Not
>>a single one. Does anyone play with your house rules internationally?
>>Nobody. Are IMJ sets sold in the world? No. Where IMJ sets manufactured
>>in the world? Nowhere. Who with international credibility cited IMJ as
>>an influence in mahjong trends? Nobody.
>
>
> Would you consider I win if I could give an answer of YES to any of the
> above questions, *by June 30, 2005*?
>
> (2) As to a bet based on the visions I posted on my website
> (http://www.imahjong.com/g3mbs.html), that is, to test the degree of my
> belief and faith in my visions, would you consider I win if any of the names
> INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG, INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG RULES or IMJ RULES is ever
> associated with any international tournament of mahjong, *by the end of
> 2006*?
You want so badly to believe in your get rich-and-famous scam that your
are ready to throw away elementary logic and common sense by the window.
Even a child can see that to comply with condition (1) you could : a)
sell a IMJ set to a friend abroad; or b) build a single set in your
home; or c) start playing with someone abroad; or with condition (2) you
could : a) run naked with IMJ tattooed on your butt in the middle of a
tournament; or b) buy advertisement space for IMJ at a tournament; or c)
let any tournament use one of your trademarks without the obligation of
using your standardized rules; or d) start selling IMJ hot-dogs at a
tournament; or e) make a scandal at a tournament on behave of IMJ.
Any stupid stunt would be enough to win the bet, but none of those
actions would be related to what you claim as the virtues of IMJ. None
of them would be signs of the success of IMJ. Even remotely.
> You could drop any or both challenges if you are afraid of the bet.
Frankly, I'm only afraid I've lost my time. I'm ill equipped to continue
debating with you. I hope someday you'll meet someone able to help you
with IMJ.
You have my authorization to publish on your website the entire
discussion we just had, you and me, unaltered. You cannot erase or omit
parts of it, but you can add any comments you wish if they are clearly
identified as supplemental comments.
Nath Krismaratala
Tom Sloper
>
> About a similar topic, I recommend you "The Situation Is Hopeless, but
> Not Serious : The Pursuit of Unhappiness" by Paul Watzlawick. The first
> chapter, "This Above All : To Thine Own Self Be True", might interest you.
>
> You can read it at :
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0393310213/ref=sib_rdr_ex/104-3888314-7946360?p=S004#reader-page
I see it now. It's the world that is out of joint! Why did I never see it
before? (^_^)
And of course I had blithely adopted Polonius' words as mine own -
overlooking that he'd been mistaken for a rat.
More the irony, then, that I was born in the Year of the Rat. Alas, poor
Polonius... I knew him not at all.
Cofa Tsui
Nath, my will to bet is genuine and my wording is reasonably meeting your
challenges:
(1) Since you wanted to measure my success with some figures and quoted the
following to prove my failure:
> What *results* do you have to show us? Does any international or
> national mahjong authority adopted your house rules? Not a single one.
> Did your house rules spawned international regroupements of players? Not
> a single one. Does anyone play with your house rules internationally?
> Nobody. Are IMJ sets sold in the world? No. Where IMJ sets manufactured
> in the world? Nowhere. Who with international credibility cited IMJ as
> an influence in mahjong trends? Nobody.
Would you consider I win if I could give an answer of YES to any of the
above questions, *by June 30, 2005*?
(2) As to a bet based on the visions I posted on my website
(http://www.imahjong.com/g3mbs.html), that is, to test the degree of my
belief and faith in my visions, would you consider I win if any of the names
INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG, INTERNATIONAL MAHJONG RULES or IMJ RULES is ever
associated with any international tournament of mahjong, *by the end of
2006*?
What your attack/assumption are simply not in my mind and I have not and
will never have such dirty intention of meeting your challenge that way! On
the other hand, like I said, I won't bite back if you want to drop your
challenge for whatever reason. And, as I mentioned before, no matter how
your attack, I'll continue working on my visions.
Keep your authorization to yourself as I have no intention of publishing the
messages on my website - Google is a better place to keep the records, I
believe! And if I ever want to publish any messages from the Usenet I guess
I don't need your permission or authorization, right?!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com