From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:14:59 GMT
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!

Meeks 22th lie: article #22 post-stop

In article <1992Aug19.140103.37230@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>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...
I see a sentence. I don't see sarcasm. Oh, you mean you didn't make this
sentence? or you don't mean it when you wrote the sentence, 

  "So, in the history of the game, the current ratio is 7 bad calls for 
   Bostons favor, 3 for ..."

I know you would regret ....

>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"
Oh, how does "you don't find the particular play to be bogus" refute 
"the play is an instance of a type that Lor consider bogus"? You mean 
you don't find the play bogus ==> I can't find the play bogus? 

>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.
I don't see any difference because that's all typing is about. Instead of
saying "1 has real sqrt, 2 has real sqrt, 3 has real sqrt ....", you say
"positive integers have real sqrts". You don't have to say "the call was
a home job" to be incriminated.

Unless you made a generalization you now regret.

>>Almost identical is not equality. 
>
>Both imply equality or less than.  
Where is "almost identical" defined as "equality"?

>Seems to be the same thing, and any 
>difference between the two does not make the sentence mean anything 
>significantly different.  
Oh, only "seems" to be the same thing. Then they aren't the same thing.
You seem to be a man, but as it turns out ....

>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.
Oh, so "exact or precise" is defined as "<"? Just can mean == or <? Where did
you see it? 

>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.  
The point is your EQUATING the type to "home jobs" in the 2nd statement
by the definition of "as just", but claiming the type as "<= home jobs that 
happen everywhere" in your first characterization. Your 2nd characterization 
is much stronger for me to accuse you.

>You didn't claim "Bird/Magic era" in the other arguments.  
On June 26, when we talked about favoritism for the Lakers and Celtics, 
especially their favoritism over the Cavs in the 1985 playoffs.

>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.  
Well, so this general statement can't refute my claim at all, namely favoritism
for the Lakers/Celtics over the Bird/Magic era. So the poll only means
the Celtics tied for 2nd recently, because Utah can't be tied for 2nd in
early/mid 80s.

>Perhaps those that voted gave the Celtics the higher marks due to the "Bird era". 
So it's not favoritism that happened everywhere.

>>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.  
Well, if the other team is Chicago? Who did Chicago have to counter Parish/
McHale/Bird/DJ before their recent championships? they had MJ? but Boston 
had Bird. The MJ excuse had always been "he doesn't have the supporting cast".
So as a team, Chicago can't get more favoritism than Boston over the 13 years.

The Lakers? it's close. But the Celtics have more stars/superstars/HOFers than 
the Lakers over the same timespan. The Celtics still get more superstar/HOFers 
favoritism than the Lakers, unless you retract your superstar favoritism 
yourself. 

>>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..
I only see your sarcastic remark in a separate sentence. So you deny
making that sentence "So, in the history of the game .... 3 for ..."?
or your "the current ratio is 7 calls for Bostons favor" has a different
meaning?

>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.
Yep, then in a type statement, all its characterizations are true for its
instances. Dispute that.

Maybe your type statement doesn't work that way.

BTW, I mentioned 11 of your screw-ups, where is the refutation of the
other 8? Can't argue about them?

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com