From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: AFC vs. NFC drivel
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:47:26 GMT

el> Edward Lor
gs> Gary Strand

gs> [A]re you simply stating "NFC champ > AFC champ", with "NFC > AFC" as some
    sort of logical corollary? 

el> Well, then you read too much into the obvious. If you try to read "NFC
    champs > AFC champs" => "NFC > AFC", that's your own problem. I didn't
    imply or state such corollary. You did. And you are arguing against "NFC
    champs > AFC champs" because of your hypothesized corollary?

  Well, then, there's nothing to argue about, really. If you don't believe
  that "NFC > AFC", then I have nothing more to say, for the most part. 

gs> If you don't make the latter claim, then why bother belaboring the point, 

el> Because I know that this "NFC champs > AFC champs", an obvious, undeniable
    point, always infuriates you. Every time I bring it up, you try to lump
    your hypothesized corollary into the argument.

  It doesn't "infuriate" me, because I know that as far as arguments go, it's
  an uninteresting one, because it's trivially true, as of the last decade or
  so. Since it's the only claim you're willing to make, and given that it is
  pretty much undebatable, all this bandwidth is for naught. I'm not that in-
  terested in your point, because, as I said, the definition is too circular.

gs> If you *define* "A > B" as "A beats B in the SB", and then say "the NFC 
    streak of 8 SB wins means that the NFC champ > AFC champ", you're defining
    your argument using the definition itself! That's circular! Can't you see
    that?

el> I can see that. But then how does "NFC > AFC" get into the this impenetra-
    ble circular argument? 

  It doesn't. Thus, no corollary "NFC > AFC" from "NFC champ > AFC champ". If
  this is true (which it is) then, when someone wants to debate the superior-
  ity of one conference or other (one of the perennial favorites, as you well
  know) using "NFC champ > AFC champ" as a starting point, why do you always
  enter into it?

  If your only desire is to argue "NFC champ > AFC champ", then you'll have to
  find someone who disagrees. I certainly don't.

gs> I've had to tease what your argument *was* out of you! You can't expect
    the statement "NFC champ > AFC champ", and all the underlying implicit
    definitions, to be obvious to anyone except Ed Lor.

el> Does it include some implicit definitions like I am a neo-Nazi and a mass
    murderer too?

  Get real. 

el> When someone has to fabricate some "underlying implicit" definitions to 
    argue, it means that he has no argument against the face value of the 
    claim.

  I'm simply trying to get you to flesh out your argument a little bit, to
  make it more worthwhile. In a way, your argument is like "2 > 1", which
  is true, to be sure, but it's a wholly boring argument.

  Basically, then, I readily agree to "NFC champ > AFC champ". 

  So what? Let's debate something more interesting, like "Gary's brain + Ed's
  brain = Gary's brain", OK?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro