From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Nitpicking
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:23:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.221146.27817@ll.mit.edu> nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith) writes:
>>When he came back, the nit-picking was the major issue.
>issues?  major issue?  ha ha.
Notice subject line. "Cut and paste" was the subject line in most of the
articles in the last 20 days. How many of them were about "Boston Bias"?

>  gimme a break already...your beliefs on calls refs give, not his beliefs.
Well, I didn't mention anything on "calls the ref give", this phrase was his. 
Why didn't he associate my belief (the 2 3-ptrs) on calls KC Jones gave? 
on calls Stormin Normin gave? on calls Tim McCarver gave?

>>>if you fail to say this, then can we presume that you do think its ALL?
>>You can.
>
>  NOW: is that the "you" as in just me? or is it the plural "you" as in the
>  Amigos? or is it the plural "you" as in the whole newsgroup?  or is it the
>  generic plural "you" to correspond with my generic inclusive "we"?  this
>  would be about the same kind of ridiculousness as your "3-1" ratio against
>  cleveland - so i guess i'm not going to jump all over it afterall, because
>  (ahem) i would never nitpick  :-).
So who do you think the "we" mean?

>  hey, this has all been in nitpicking mode, too.  from the time it began
>  until well into the future.
Oh, you mean the Boston Bias thread started in nit-picking mode. Thanks for
the understanding. I mean, there was people who complained that we shouldn't
nit-pick and should switch back to basketball. You know who they are.

>well aside from the word "types" omitted above and other things done to
>save bandwidth & maximize confusion...
>
>  in your mind this "admission" is your argument, in other people's minds
>there was no admission, so what is the argument?  
Well, who are these "other people" besides you? 
So what's new? You still can't get away from his "type of calls" admission,
his phantom hypothesis of "current ratio of 7 vs 3" and his association
of the 2 3-ptrs as "calls the ref gives"

>>But that's not my original point. The original point was the Celtics
>>got more....
>
>so the point of argument only changes when it suits Ed.  Nice.
Yeah? like your wimp out from "probably 50% more" to only "10% more".
I wonder how one's opinion can change 5-fold in a few days without even 
examining the tapes or the stat books.  Hmmm.... all numbers must be 
speculations just to suit the argument (and to help out a meek little brother, 
of course).

>>>Bird's foot on the line was a fact, but it's still debatable...[...]...
>>                               ^^^^           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>                                        see - i can cut & paste things to
>>                                         change their appearance :-)
>
>this was the First Mention of Cut & Paste.  In it I made no accusation of
>anyone else cutting & pasting.  But, boy, did I get a MILE-LONG DINGER out
>of that "innocent" little snip.  :-)  :-)  :-)  (one for each of us)
You cut & paste accusation may be innocent, but Meeks' wasn't.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com