From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:57:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug17.142511.33071@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
Meeks 20th lie: article #20 post-stop

>>These bogus calls CONSTITUTE THE TYPE. You had no argument with that the last 
>>time. Regret now?
>No.  They consitute the type for you.  
Of course, who cares whether they constitute the type for anybody else?
Only my type is in the equation, nobody else's is.

>That still does not constitute the calls themselves.  
What's that supposed to mean?

>Nope.  Classify it all you want. Just don't try to equate it to me saying
>that the Bird 3ptr was a home job.
Why not? your generalization screws up. Why shouldn't I try to abuse you?

>So, you admit you fucked up.. Good, we now have a number of examples of
>Ed fucking up...
Oh, my fucking up gets your admission of a certain play that is an
instance of a home job. Seems like that's a fucking up well done.

>Well, "just" is defined as "barely", "within a small amount", "merely"...
That's still not "nothing more than". I saw "just" defined as precise and
exact.

>Doesn't need to.  The ellipsis shows continuation of a previous statement
>from the point of ellipsis.  
But you didn't have a previous statement of "just home jobs". 

>It does not show a "whole" quote.  The 
>continuation was of the "definition" of home jobs originally used, that
>being "home jobs that happen everywhere".
But that's not evidence of "home jobs originally used", because you
used the term in a totally different context -- a different 
characteriation.

>Well, "just" is defined to be "barely", "within a small amount", "merely",
>as well as "exact or precise".  "nothing more than" implies equal or less.
>Seem about the same to me.
"Exact or precise" != "equal or less" So your 2nd characterization was 
not equal to your 1st one.

>>Silly, I don't have to.  "things" are just instances of "types of things", 
>>which are just home jobs, a description of the type. If the description
>>is true for the type, how isn't it true of all its instances?
>
>Because the type is agreed upon, the individual instances are not. 
Lie. In article #17 post-stop:

   >>2) Bird's 3-ptr is an instance of type Tj
   >No one argues you including the instance.

You got no choice. Type Tj is "calls for the home team that 
we argue for a month". Don't like it? I'll use another type Tk which
is "calls for the home team that Bis admitted as wrong". Go ahead,
argue the facts.

>Rock music exists.  Is Madonna a classification of Rock Music??  To some she
>is, to others she is not.  
Who cares? that has nothing to do with my classification.

>>For example, positive integers (a type) just have real square roots. 
>>How can any instance of positive integers not have a real square root?
>But, I agree with this.  If were to use the example of the number -1 as an
>example, I would not agree with you, yet still agree with your equation.
Irrelevant, -1 is not an instance of the type mentioned in the 
characterization: POSITIVE INTEGERS.  

The Bird 3-ptr is an instance of a type I consider bogus, the type
in the characterization.  Again, your next argument is going to be: no 
one agrees about you including the instances, which contradicts your 
"no one argues you including the instances".  

>In my mind, the Bird 3ptr does not belong in the list, 
>as it is not a bogus job or home job, yet you including it in your list 
>as an example is allowed.
Then your mind screws up. The Bird 3ptr does not belong to a list (type/
class) that Lor considers bogus? Is that, again, a claim that Lor == Meeks?

>Yes. Because I didn't say I can't argue that the 3ptr belongs to the type (Tj),
>but rather to "you" including the instance.  
Because, indeed, you can't argue that the 3ptr belong to the type. The
type is "a home call in BG that we argue for over a month". Go ahead, 
argue that the 3ptr doesn't belong.

>>You are just saying that the play X is an instance of a type that's home job 
>>                                                              ....(claim A) 
>>You don't consider it home job? then you just contradicted yourself.
>No, I do not.  I consider the type "Tj" to be the type of things
>that are home jobs...  And, what was said, for the hundredth time, is that
>the type of thing (Tj) are just home jobs..., not the "instance".  
But even you say it a thousand time, you still can't refute the
fact that the if a characterization is true for a type, it's also true
for all its instances. You have no way to refute this logic except, in
a moron way, using a non-instance (e.g. -1 doesn't have a real square root) 
as counter-example.

>So, you claim that the Celtics get more favoritism than the other teams.
>Then, you use as evidence the "poll", which shows that there were more than
>a few times tied or better than the Celtics, which refutes your claim.  
The poll wasn't about 1980-1992.

>Hmm.. Ed, are you sure you want to use the poll as "evidence", as it doesn't
>support your claim.  
Why not? if the Celtics are tied for 2nd. That's only true for 1992.
That's still a good supporting evidence for Celtic favoritism. They were
ahead of 22 teams.  As far as 1980-1992 is concerned, is there any poll 
yet? Superstar favoritism is by your admission.

>It does support mine, as the comment of "home jobs
>that happen everywhere" seems to fit the poll, as it seems people agreed that
>all the teams got some degree of favoratism.  
Oh, tied for 2nd == home jobs that happen everywhere? 

>So... let's look at things...
Hmmmm.... getting nowhere with your admission of a play being an instance
of a type that's a home job, huh? Reviving the entire argument seems
like a good strategy. Since more arguments in your admission of home jobs 
will result in nothing but like:

1) no one argues that play X is in type Tj
2) Meeks doesn't agree that play X is in type Tj.

I'll answer your other questions in another article.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com