One of the versions I have heard about this analogy comes from corn silk. The corn fed to pigs is usually of the lowest quality, and if you use the silk from cheap ears of corn, you won’t be able to make a useful purse out of it

Welcome to Muphry’s Law!

Don’t look for snake tits

Not use it, as much as I don’t use all my other numbers

Agreed. People don’t take into account the fact that historians have existed for a long time and probably would have noticed a person as revolutionary as the one mentioned in the gospels - miracles or not. The Romans were excellent record keepers, and that is how we know for a fact - for example - that Herod’s timeline does not jibe with the virgin birth myth, nor did the Roman survey methodology jibe with the Bethleham journey myth, to cite two examples among so many others

Silly me - wondering if there was a contemporary, unbiased historian who maybe could have heard of him

Source?

By truth do you mean that Santa doesn’t exist, that the whole Christmas celebration is an adaptation of Roman pagan traditions, or that Jesus never existed?

It sounds OK if you say it in French

For a minute there I thought you were a foie gras goose

Sure, if people suddenly switched languages and then laughed in my face, I would feel bad.

But if it’s like the other comments in this post, and it’s a couple having a quick word about a private matter, I wouldn’t mind. It’s not like I should be a part of that conversation

It’s rude for spouses to have a private conversation? Would whispering be better? Would it be better if they hid in a cupboard where no one could see them?

Right. Speaking about people in the third person is rude

The bishop is in danger and unsupported no matter where you move it.

What I meant with giving check with the rook was:

1… Bxf4 2. Kh1/Kg1 Ra1+

That puts white in check with the rook, forcing the king to move, followed by b1Q. If then white takes the new queen at b1, she is protected by the rook at a1. Again, not the most elegant solution but at least black is not giving his promoted pawn away for nothing

Black could always move the rook to a1 before promoting the pawn. It forces a trade, but still leaves black with an advantage.

If white moves his knight to g2, check with the bishop at g3 also gets him another pawn and opens up the king’s defenses a little.

White could also take the bishop at f4 with the pawn, but that would just lead to a discovered check.

Given, moving the bishop to b4 does give a better outcome if white moves the king back to row 1. Thanks for walking me through it!

My question was: what would happen if black did not move his bishop to b4, but rather took the pawn at f4. So far, the answers I keep getting begin with b4

It looks like we are talking about two different things and will never reach a consensus

I see. You are planning on moving the king before the discovered check. That was not mentioned in the original solution, and also changes the play for:

1. … Bb4

If we use your solution we can’t use discovered check for the same reason, because:

2. Kh1 b1Q+

Also gives:

3. Rxb1

That is true. White doesn’t have to play Rxb4 after Bb4 either.

Once white stops the discovered check with Ng2, black can either capture the rook at b7 or try for mate. White can’t move to the king to g1 or h1 because the new queen is covering that row.

In either case, you are moving the bishop out of the way for a discovered check. My question is wouldn’t it be better to get a pawn out of it?

My idea was:

… Bxf4

g3xf4 b1Q+

Ng2

The other way would be:

… Bb4

Rxb4 b1Q+

Ng2

I don’t see a huge difference - black loses - or at least risks losing - the bishop either way, and also is able to promote the pawn either way. The white rook can’t take the new queen because he is in check from the black rook.

My solution opens up the king’s defenses a little and gains black a pawn