From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Nitpicking
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:11:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Jul27.154207.14386@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>
>Because that's how it progressed after July 4. I made my last posts on
>the issues on July 6. No more responses except yours and Jim Mann's on
>the nit-picking (admission, cut-and-paste). Meeks was out of the country at 
>that time. When he came back, the nit-picking was the major issue.
>
issues?  major issue?  ha ha.

also, From an earlier post of mine:
>>now who is the blind bat here?  he is only talking about your beliefs here.
Ed:
>But he associated my belief to "calls the refs gave", he didn't associate my
>beliefs to Bush's recent action on Saddam, to Fay Vincent's authorities, to 
>the general trend of the stock market .....

  gimme a break already...your beliefs on calls refs give, not his beliefs.

>
>>Dave's wording of the Premise held by Ed Lor - "the league is in the Celtics
>>pocket and the refs give the Celtics all the calls"
>>Dave's wording of the Sufficient Proof Ed needs for his premise - "Ed can
>>name 2 incidents as calls he thinks are bogus."
>>why dont you instead say "i never said the refs give the celts ALL the
>> calls"?
>>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  :-).

> But that's not our argument since we switch to nit-picking mode. 

  hey, this has all been in nitpicking mode, too.  from the time it began
  until well into the future.

>You still don't know the argument -- Meeks admitted that the 3-ptr as 
>home jobs, bad call, and calls the refs give ....

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?  nitpicking over sentences
posted to the group.  if you are going to nitpick, dont STOP at 1. GO for 3:

>>why dont you instead say "it wasnt 2, it was 7 and could be even more if we
>>add in bogus fouls"?  if you fail to object to 2 here, can we assume that
>>the other 5 are now no longer in your list, making your score 2-2?
>Well, if you make that assumption, I presume that's your admission of the 
>Bird 3-ptr as bogus, otherwise you would have said "what bogus 3-ptr? the
>score is 2-0."

  ah...my score is still 0-0, remember?
  it was your score I was referring to.  i have no conclusion on the bird
  3-ptr because i still havent seen adequate video coverage of it.
>
>>seems like you missed out on an opportunity, Ed.  you're not even doing a
>>good job of nitpicking apart dave's wordings, sifting through them to catch
>>a stumble.
>No, seems like you don't even know the arguments have been swifted for two
>weeks..... 
>
>                                          Edward Lor

ah, but the arguments that Could Have Been!!  of course i know what you are
trying to argue - i'm just saying, hey, you forgot these also.  oh why
bother.

>>But, your point was that the Celtics "if they get one disfavored call,
>>they must have got at least 3 favored calls."  
>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.

From nates Tue Jun 30 13:55:02 EDT 1992
>>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)

- nate
+---------------------------------------------------------+
|   Reggie Lewis being interviewed mercilessly by Ehlo:   |
|   "what bogus 3-ptr?  i didnt see one, did you?"        |
+---------------------------------------------------------+