From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
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: 19 Aug 92 14:01:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug18.174302.24439@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.142511.33071@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>1) Claims early victory when he has 4 other people give supposed support of
>>his claim (by supplying evidence, etc..).   However, when the numbers quickly
>>turn in favor of the Dirty Dozen (at least 9-5 last I looked), he drops this
>>line of attack.
>>
>>2) He tries to veer the discussion away from his stupid remarks by getting into
>>a semantic argument that Meeks made an admission based on 3 comments he made.
>>However, when it is pointed out his obvious errors by Meeks and others on the
>>net, he admits he backs away from this claim.
>Well, you still can't get away from the semantic arguments. You still
>can't get away with the three admissions: 
>
>1) bad call
>use a phantom hypothesis in a sentence "So, in the histroy of the
>game, the current ratio is 7 bad calls for the Bostons favor, 3 for ...."

Hmm... I use a sarcastic comment to a stupid analysis you made, and you think
this was an admission...  Get a clue Ed..  We have addressed this issue before.
If you can't understand such obvious sarcasm (which others on the net have 
already pointed out when they said they found this to be sarcasm), I can't
help it...
>
>2) home job
>declare that a certain play can't be an instance of a type that Lor 
>considers bogus.

Never said you couldn't consider the play of the instance of the type that
you consider bogus.  Just said that I don't find the particular play to be
bogus.  The ol' "for the sake of argument, you can use it"
>
>And a month later, you still can't argue anything else but a phantom
>argument "I didn't say the call was bogus", which has nothing to do
>with (1) or (2).

Well, you admit that I didn't say the call was bogus.  I also never said the
call was a home job, just that the "type of call" was.  Big difference.
>
>>3) He then tries to veer the discussion away from (2), which he admits he
>>screwed up on, to a subsequent remark, trying to say that it was instrumental
>>in his discussion.  However, the only difference between this comment and
>>the comment used in (2), which he admitted he was wrong on, are the use of
>>the word "just", as opposed to "nothing more than", and the use of the 
>>ellipsis to imply "home jobs that happen everywhere", as opposed to home jobs.
>>However, Meeks has pointed out that "just" can easily be used to imply
>>"barely", "merely", which is almost identical to "nothing more than".
>Almost identical is not equality. 

Both imply equality or less than.  Seems to be the same thing, and any 
difference between the two does not make the sentence mean anything 
significantly different.  If the whole basis of your argument is now
that "types of things nothing more than home jobs..." vs 
     "types of things just home jobs..."
Well, yes, it was said, but no, I don't see your so-called point.
>
>>At worst, "just" means ==.  Nothing more means "==" or less than.  
>You said it. One is ==, another one is <=. 1<=2 is the same as 1==2? You
>know any arithmetic?

At worst, "just" means ==.  It also means < as well.  So, just can mean 
either ==, or <.  Nothing more than means ==, or <.  Not a lot of difference.

>>yet Ed sees the second statement as "evidence" where the first
>>statement he admits he fucked up on.   
>Well, the first statement, apparently isn't the evidence I needed. What's
>the fuck up? why were you so stupid to provide me the 2nd evidence?

Whats the difference Ed???  Let's take the hypothetical that you want to use
the 2nd statement.  Where is your argument??  What is so different about this
statement (#2) from the first statement (#1) that you feel that further 
arguments on the point are valid.  If you want me to admit that the two 
statements are !=, from a semantical point of view, I don't see what the point
is.  Are you next going to check to see if I misspelled any of the words in
the other references??  Are we now only argueing about the structure of the
sentence or it's actual meaning?
>
>>4)  When he notices the fact that he screwed up on 1, screwed up on 2, and 
>>it appears he is screwing up on 3, he tries to veer the discussion away again
>>with comments that the "poll" that was taken was in his favor.  Funny, 
>>Ed makes an initial claim, with no supportable evidence, that the Celtics
>>get more favoratism than the other teams.  The poll shows that, though the
>>net thinks the Celtics were tied for 2nd, the were clearly not in the lead.
>Well, tied for 2nd in 1992 has little to do with their overall ranking
>in the Bird/Magic era. Wouldn't you say?

You didn't claim "Bird/Magic era" in the other arguments.  You didn't limit
your discussions to the "Bird/Magic era" until later.  The poll shows  what 
an extremely limited set of people thought about favoratism.  I don't remember
the poll being stated as "favoratism in the Bird/Magic era", nor do I remember
it being "favoratism in 92".  It seemed to be a general statement.  Perhaps
those that voted gave the Celtics the higher marks due to the "Bird era". 
>
>>Yes Ed thinks this is evidence.  Funny.  It refutes his claim of "more than
>>the other teams", but he thinks it is support.  
>Unless you can prove that "the other teams" == "any other teams". 

According to the Ed.Lor book of semantic arguments, this is not needed, as this
is evidence enough.  You gave me the so-called "blank check".  Greater than
the other teams?? Didn't seem like this is true if the "other team" is Chicago
or the Lakers.  

>1) Meeks claim that such home calls happen everywhere. Yet I am still waiting
>for his evidence to back up this claim: the list of home calls on every court.
>When are you going to turn in your assignment?
>
>2) His admission of the Bird 3-ptr as "bad calls" No way to retract that 
>sentence. Just wimp out by sarcasm in a totally separate sentence.

No need to "retract" the sentence.  It was used as a sarcastic remark, and was
recognized as such by others.  If you are to feeble to understand that, too 
bad..

>
>3) His admission of the 3-ptr as an instance of a type that is just home job
>..... NO way to retract that. Why not refusing to let the 3-ptr as an
>instance of that type. In other words, why not restrict what types Lor can
>consider bogus or not? or restrict what instances belong to the type?

Wrong.  Admission of the 3ptr as something YOU believe to be bogus and I then
claim that the type of situation being a home job.  Why bother refusing what
you use as types, because I may not be familiar with every situation you are.
Therefore, I allow the use of any call into the group, as it does nothing more
than establish a type, the type of which has been equated.
-- 
David T. Meeks                    ||" We are jigsaw pieces, aligned on the 
VMark Software, Inc.              ||  perimeter edge, 
uvmark!davem@merk.com             ||  interlocked through a missing piece"
davem%uvmark@merk.com             ||" ...This world is totally Fugazi"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro