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: 13 Aug 92 15:21:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: uvmark.1992Aug13.152125.73718
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug12.220438.22852@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>Meeks' 13th lie: article #13 post-stop
>
>In article <1992Aug12.184842.60481@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>But no one said I agree with the specific calls, just the types.  
>You don't have to. That call belongs to the type. What do you think "you
>(Ed Lor) consider bogus" means?

Doesn't matter.  No one agreed on the types.  Next you are going to try and
say I agree that Larry Bird is bogus, right.. After all, Larry Bird was part
of the instance of the type of the things mentioned, right... Though I don't
agree with your semantic bullshit, we go with it since you seem to have 
given up on the original discussions.

>
>>If you
>>want to consider a specific event bogus, fine. I may/may not agree with the
>>call (or your interpretation of it), but agree that the type of situation 
>>is the aforementioned "homejobs that happen everywhere".
>Nope, you statment on 7/2 was "home job ....".

Note again the "...".  According to most writing manuals, this is considered
an ellipse.  Let me explain what that means.  According to the Random House
Dictionary, Basic Manual of Style:
"Use an ellipsis mark (three or four consecutive periods) to indicate that 
part of a quoted sentence has been omitted."

The ellipsis is used to note that there was a continuation of the comment
that was omitted.

>
>>No.. it was "types of things you consider bogus".  Let's not start the
>>cut/paste discussion again.  But yes, you can collect all the events you
>>want and make a class you consider bogus, such as "BG home calls".  
>That's right. "BG home calls" is a classification/generalization of a 
>collection of individual events, which include the Bird 3-ptr. 
>
>>I agree then that "BG home calls", your class of events are home jobs that 
>>happen everywhere.  
>My class of events are "home jobs ...", like you said on 7/2. Are you
>going to deny it?

Nope... Reread the ellipsis comments.  "home jobs ..." refers to the
original comment of "... home jobs that happen everywhere."  

>
>>I don't agree that things like the Bird 3-ptr, etc, are bogus
>>however..
>Nobody asks for your agreement. As long as you said something that gives
>a characterization of a type that the Bird 3-ptr belongs to, that's fine.

Nobody asks, but you are trying very hard to "prove" that I agreed with you.
I did characterize a type.  Many events may/may not belong to the type.
No one claimed anything about the events, just the types..

>
>>There are dozens of instances of that type.  
>Oh, you mean there are dozens of instances of the type "BG calls that I 
>consider bogus"? Great, thanks for the arsenal.

That's fine.  But remember, I never agreed with the instances, just the type...
>
>>I don't have to agree with the
>>instance to agree with the type, or agree with the classification. 
>You don't have to. I determine the instances for the type "type of things
>I consider bogus", you don't.
>

Excuse me???  You determine all you like, but don't try and make a point that
I agree with your determination of the instance.  You can come up with as
many instances of the type as you feel like.  I may/may not agree with them.

>>Since when??? I agree that a circle is round.  Just because you say that some
>>square box you show me is round does not mean I believe it to be so.  I still
>>believe circles to be round, just don't believe you example of a circle to
>>be a circle.  
>Still don't get the point, huh? There is no freedom for me to determine a 
>square box to be a round in "I (Meeks) agree that a circle is round", my 
>decision isn't involved in the binding the instances to the type.  Yet there 
>is freedom for me to determine a particular incident to be "the type of 
>things Ed Lor considers bogus", you said it explicitly.

Very true.  But there is no freedom for you to bind the instance to an
agreement by me, as you seem intent on doing.  I gave you the freedom to
determine the type.  You have the freedom to determine the events that
make up your type.  There is no implicit direct relation between your 
events and my statement concerning the relation of the types.  Your events
may make up the general type, but they don't do this with my agreement of
the events.
>
>
>>Or, to help you out, I believe that the types of situations you
>>are considering to be bogus, ie..  calls you consider incorrect within 
>>Boston Garden, are nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere.  
>Lie again. That's not your sentence on 7/2.

Yeah, it is a lie again.  It is your lie, and it has been shown...

>>By me!!
>But you weren't involved in the decision of bogus or not in that sentence,
>only I was.

And why is that?  
>
>>Didn't need to.  Stated the other way still has not admission.  
>Oh, so this is an admission of Ed Lor == Dave Meeks. Since Dave Meeks
>determines what instances belong to the "type of things Ed Lor considers
>bogus".

Nope.  Dave Meeks does not determine what instances belong to that type.
Ed Lor does.  However, since Ed Lor != Dave Meeks, Ed Lor does not determine
whether Dave Meeks agrees that Ed Lor's instances are correct or not.
>
>>Don't need to .  I agree with the characterization of the type.  I don't 
>>agree with the specific case in question.  I agree that their have been calls
>>made at home in various arenas that were bogus.  I agree that these are home
>>jobs.  I don't agree that the Bird situation was one of them...
>Too bad, your agreement or not was nowhere to be found in "the type of things
>Ed Lor considers bogus".  Now the only way to wimp out is to equate Meeks to 
>Lor.

So, now you admit that I didn't agree with you in this statement. And, you
are the only one trying to wimp out with the Meeks == Lor statement, not
me.  I would never sink so low...
-- 
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"