From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Hmmm... (Changing the rules)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 14:03:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan27.234521.19876@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.191455.40397@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>No, before it was you and Gary, 
>I don't consider it a flame war against Gary. It was an argument.

Once again, another contradiction.  You have stated publicly that 
"I am only into flame wars...".  As such, how can it be any different???
Or are you contradicting yourself again??

>
>>and earlier you and John Gloria, 
>Gloria was in a flame war with me? for 2 days? Have we ever had a flame
>war that lasted only 2 days? 

Yes, actually.  And besides, what flame war???  More like bogus accusations
and claims...

>>One person involved in all three... YOU!!!  
>Oh, so you must constantly be in flame wars too, when people criticizing the 
>Dolphins.

Nope, I have made no claim saying that "I am only into flame wars..." as you
have stated.  Only on a few occasions did I bother to get into any flame
war with anyone about the Dolphins.  

>
>>And, in so many other arguments, it seems to be you against many others...
>Yes, like all the people you infuriated in rec.sport.football.college?

All the what, two or three??  The total doesn't come anywhere near your
glorious totals Ed...

>
>>Actually, we have decided it is the "all people against Ed Lor"...  I didn't
>>realize John Gloria was a Buffalo fan... 
>Yes, I don't realize that you were a Buffalo fan either. You should have
>told Bruce Yeager.

I am not a Buffalo fan.  That's what is so funny about this.  I am not, have
never been, and will probably never be a Buffalo fan.  I am, as you already
mentioned, a Dolphins fan.  I LIKE the Cowboys better than the Bills.  I
also am a Pittsburgh fan and a Minnesota fan.  Big deal...  Gotta gid rid
of your complex that everyone who disagrees with you is a "fan" of something
Ed...

>>Remember our argument awhile back that you claimed what was said before 
>>or after doesn't matter??  
>Really? So SF must be better than Buffalo, no doubt about it, because
>back in 1981/84/88/89, that statement was true. So saying "San Francisco 
>IS better than Buffalo" 4 years after the fact shouldn't matter ...

What an ass.  Big difference in comparing a team THIS year as opposed to
81/84/88/89...  We are talking about which team was better, and the comment
was made THIS YEAR!!  And, I don't care whether you made the claim or not.
However, you used various attributes in comparing the two teams...
You used - records
	 - head-to-head
	 - strength of schedule

>On 10/7/92, Buffalo is 4-1, SF is 4-1, Miami is 4-0, Philly is 4-0.
>1) Based on records, the 49ers aren't the 2nd best team in the league.
>There are two teams with superior records.
>
>2) For identical record, based on head-to-head, Buffalo won at Candlestick, 
>so the 49ers aren't better than Buffalo at that time.
>
>There is an idiot who didn't even know the context of the "Based
>on record ...." statement, and tried to use it as "proof". 

But Ed, you are the person who liked to disallow "context" statements in our
previous flame-fest...  Remember the huge argument we had where you went off
trying to use a statement I made against me, even though it was surrounded
by to qualifying statements???   And, besides..  According to you,
First criteria... who has the better record
Second criteria... who had the better head - to - head

Ok, you have established that.  You have also made comments that strength
of schedule and such didn't matter, as they didn't come into play either.
Well, according to the league, in this situation, it doesn't come into play
either.  At this point in time, based on equivalent records, and Buffalo
winning the head-to-head, there is no need to go further.  Yet, you then make
the claim of:
"My observation is based on who the 49ers played too.  They didn't beat any
of the unbeaten/1-loss teams."  

Now it looks like you are using additional criteria to base you observations 
on.  Criteria that the league would not be using in this case, so you 
obviously are improvising and not using the league only criteria.  Yet, you
then bitch if someone thinks in a way that is not "league approved"...

>On this issue, I don't think I need any. This is not a matter of
>opinions, e.g. Buffalo vs SF. This is a rebuttal of a phoney accusation,
>which proves to be baseless except "it seems you are IMPLYING ...."

Where is it "baseless"?  The opinion that it wasn't is shared by at least
2 people.  Myself, and the person who was kind enough to send me the article.

>
>>And, you probably don't see any opinion on the "bogus" accusation because it
>>wasn't bogus.  
>If it wasn't bogus, I don't know what is. You are arguing against something 
>you fabricated: I am implying that 4-1 Buffalo and 4-1 SF have DIFFERENT 
>records, thus incorrectly use the tie-breaker. 

No, just that you have complained against using alternate means of determing
team strength before, as the league doesn't recognize those factors.  Then,
you make claims of using those criteria.  You claim that part of your 
decision was based on who they played, i.e. strength of schedule.  As the
league would not be using this criteria in this case (as it is far down the
scale, and according to you, we had already determined which team was better)

>>Where have I been "wimping" out??  
>Because I didn't see any replies on our "Hmmm...." since last Friday.

Ever hear of the weekend???  

>
>>You asked to prove that
>>you were making up the rules, and I have shown how you let the rules change
>>to fit your own particular needs.  
>Yes, based on something you made up. All you have shown is that 
>your fabricated implication, not my words, did indeed change the rules.

Funny, since those were direct quotes that they weren't your words...  

>>And what opinion is that??? That Buffalo was better than SF???  I have seen
>>plenty of opinions on my side, and I have seen many on the side of SF as well.
>Then the burden of proof of "plenty of opinions on my side" is on you. You
>care to list the names?

How many do you need... And why is the burden of proof on me???  I didn't start
the "S.F. is better than Buffalo" comments either...

>>As far as comparisions between the two, opinions vary, but we had more than 
>>1 person agreeing that we have at least 1 undeniable factor... That Buffalo
>>beat SF in SF this year.  
>We also had the entire league agreeing that SF's had a better record than
>Buffalo. We also had the media and Vegas agreeing that SF was better than
>Buffalo.

We do??? And what media is that??   And I didn't realize that Vegas was in
the business of determining the best teams???  Talk about bogus implications
and claims.  They are in the business of making money.  And, they do not 
always pick the best team to win, but rather pick WHICH team they think will
win.  And besides, the last I saw, they liked Buffalo's chances a whole hell
of a lot better than San Francisco's (for the SuperBowl).  And there isn't
any "agreeing" as far as the record goes.  However, opinions vary greatly
on what that means...  
-- 
David T. Meeks            || "New shadows tugging at the corner of his eye
VMark Software, Inc.      ||  Jostling for attention as the sunlight flares
uvmark!davem@merk.com     ||  Through a curtains tear, shuffling its beams
davem%uvmark@merk.com     ||  As if in nervous anticipation of another day"