From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Boston Bias
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:20:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.140213.42221@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>So, according to you, a home job is ROBBERY???  A home job, the way I look
>at it, are calls that COULD go either way, but go the way of the home team.
Oh, so home job is THE WAY YOU LOOK AT IT? That's another evidence of
re-definition.

That's not how it's seen in the dictionary.

>Let me clarify.  If the ref has to make a JUDGEMENT call, such as ruling on
>a goaltending call, or foul, or such, on a player (such as MJ), or on a 
>team, and the ruling goes in their favor, it is possible it could be what
>can be described as a "home job", in my view.  
Then tell me in WHAT situations in the game that the refs do not have to 
make a judgement. For Christ's sake, the refs are employed to make judgements
on the court. So the implmentation of the rules are all human judgement. 

In other words, what you are saying is that any call against the road team,
since it's from human judgemnet, is a home job.
 
>Basically, the only difference
>is that I don't describe a "home job" as being only "bogus calls".  
But based on your definition, there is no bogus calls in your book. Since all
calls are human judgement, bogus (my def.) or not.

>Understand now.  I don't consider the Bird 3ptr as bogus.  
So? you can say this 100 times, that still can't back you out from "home jobs"
and "bad call".

>I consider it the correct call.  I do realize that the
>play was so close that it could have gone the other way as well.  
But based on your definition, there is no bogus call. There is either
"calls that go either way" or "judgement call".

>Didn't use sarcasm to wimp out of anything.  I used sarcasm because it was
>the appropriate response to your moronic logic.  You decided to make it 
>some kind of conclusive statement, when it wasn't.
Well, if you want to question my moronic logic, the appropiate statement
is "even if A, then ~B", where A is "the list of bad calls", B is 
"conclusive".

That's NOT what you did. What you did was

    "A, ~B" 

It's still a challenge of the logic, but only the logic alone.  You didn't 
hypothesize the premise whatsoever. In contrast, you use it (small sample
size) to justify ~B. 

>No, I think, as do others, that I have "gotten around" the "admissions" 
>pretty well.  
Yep, who are the others? nate? Nate doesn't even know what we are arguing
about, like "you didn't admit bogus ..."

>You have yet to show any real admission of anything.  
I have. "home jobs", "bad calls", "calls that the refs gives". The only
thing you didn't admit was "bogus", but that's allright, since you erase
"bogus" in your book.

>And, in
>just about every case, it has been obvious that I have done everything BUT
>admit, but rather have stated the opposite.
Yes, but you still can't get rid of the three admissions.

>And what "lies" are those Ed??? The lies of what I said include the printing
>of the whole paragraph or sentence in question, as opposed to your only putting
>up part of it???  
As opposed to you sidestepping my accusations (in full quotes) on your admission,
and you could only deal with the subsequent shorthands of the same accusations.

How did you lie? You didn't tell THE WHOLE TRUTH. You only accused me of cut
and paste, you didn't mention the full quotes in the initial accusation.

>Why???  Because there were two issues.  A premise and the reasoning behind
>it.  It will be practically impossible to prove/disprove your comments
>on the ratios, as a lot of it has to do with individual opinion on whether
>a call was bad, etc..  
But you still have to do it if you don't like "the call as bad", like insisting
the 3-ptr as a correct call. There is no two ways about it. Question the 
reasoning? fine, but you use the tone of 

   "A, thus B".

That's the admission on A, only a challenge of the logic. Like I say,

     "Meeks is a man, thus he is a wimp".

Challenge it.

>But, by the same token, it didn't say "Ok, I agree with you that their
>were 7 bad calls vs 4, but that isn't very conclusive.".  
You don't have to. You assert the premise (7 vs 4), you only disagree with the
conclusion, i.e. you only question the logic.

>There was no agreement with you claim, just that the claim didn't seem 
>to address any real conclusion.
Well, an agreement doesn't have to be "I agree". You asserted the premise.
That's all I need.

>Not true.  Because in invalidating (2), you could have just made up another
>ratio of other calls YOU (<- see, not that I agree with,but you think) think
>are bogus.   
Tough! Then you may have to attack those ratio too. What does attacking the
logic (i.e. the conclusion) have to do with the premise?

>We have attacked (2) by getting the general opinion of the net,
>as you yourself have stated before to be the telling proof.  
Well, you have attacked (2), but you also have admitted (2) but only question
the conclusiveness. I mean, the attack on (2) are just your usual denials,
but the admission of (2) is enough to incriminate you.

>So far, in the
>limited data set available, the facts don't support you at this point.  
That's only the reasoning. That still has nothing to do with your admission.

>But Ed, the initial comment was that He did not step on the line and that
>the call was correct.  Types of things you consider bogus may include a lot
>of things.  As a whole, (types of things you consider bogus) is equated
>to be nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere.  This does not
>imply that I agree that everything you believe to be bogus is a home job.
>There will be a large number of situations you will consider to be bogus
>that I will not think are bogus.  
Really? That's not what you said on 7/2. Oh, now you want to wimp out of what
you said? Now it's "there will be a large # of situations ....".

>But, I guess in your mind you now have the
>right to say anything is bogus, and I will agree that it was a home job.
>Ed Lor: "Hey, the fact the Reggie Lewis got selected for the AllStar game was
>bogus"
>According to Ed Lor, this must mean "Yeah, it was a home job"...
Well, this equation is yours, not mine. So I guess you consider it a home
job.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro