From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
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: 18 Aug 92 17:43:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug17.142511.33071@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>1) Claims early victory when he has 4 other people give supposed support of
>his claim (by supplying evidence, etc..).   However, when the numbers quickly
>turn in favor of the Dirty Dozen (at least 9-5 last I looked), he drops this
>line of attack.
>
>2) He tries to veer the discussion away from his stupid remarks by getting into
>a semantic argument that Meeks made an admission based on 3 comments he made.
>However, when it is pointed out his obvious errors by Meeks and others on the
>net, he admits he backs away from this claim.
Well, you still can't get away from the semantic arguments. You still
can't get away with the three admissions: 

1) bad call
use a phantom hypothesis in a sentence "So, in the histroy of the
game, the current ratio is 7 bad calls for the Bostons favor, 3 for ...."

2) home job
declare that a certain play can't be an instance of a type that Lor 
considers bogus.

And a month later, you still can't argue anything else but a phantom
argument "I didn't say the call was bogus", which has nothing to do
with (1) or (2).

>3) He then tries to veer the discussion away from (2), which he admits he
>screwed up on, to a subsequent remark, trying to say that it was instrumental
>in his discussion.  However, the only difference between this comment and
>the comment used in (2), which he admitted he was wrong on, are the use of
>the word "just", as opposed to "nothing more than", and the use of the 
>ellipsis to imply "home jobs that happen everywhere", as opposed to home jobs.
>However, Meeks has pointed out that "just" can easily be used to imply
>"barely", "merely", which is almost identical to "nothing more than".
Almost identical is not equality. 

>At worst, "just" means ==.  Nothing more means "==" or less than.  
You said it. One is ==, another one is <=. 1<=2 is the same as 1==2? You
know any arithmetic?

>As it has
>been pointed out that "just" can also mean "barely", which is the same as less
>than, where is the difference?   
All these whining tells me that "just" != "nothing more than".

>Additionally, the whole discussion of
>home jobs...  vs. home jobs that happen everywhere.  Where it the so-called
>difference that matters in this discussion?  
Since "just" != "nothing more than", you are giving two different 
characterizations. In other words, the 1st characterization has no
bearing to the 2nd.

>Ed has never agreed with the
>premise of "home jobs that happen everywhere" and has claimed that all that
>said was "home jobs".  
Apparently so from the 2nd characterization.

>So, semantically, the two statements are nearly identical, 
Oh, nearly identical? that's admission of not identical.

>yet Ed sees the second statement as "evidence" where the first
>statement he admits he fucked up on.   
Well, the first statement, apparently isn't the evidence I needed. What's
the fuck up? why were you so stupid to provide me the 2nd evidence?

>4)  When he notices the fact that he screwed up on 1, screwed up on 2, and 
>it appears he is screwing up on 3, he tries to veer the discussion away again
>with comments that the "poll" that was taken was in his favor.  Funny, 
>Ed makes an initial claim, with no supportable evidence, that the Celtics
>get more favoratism than the other teams.  The poll shows that, though the
>net thinks the Celtics were tied for 2nd, the were clearly not in the lead.
Well, tied for 2nd in 1992 has little to do with their overall ranking
in the Bird/Magic era. Wouldn't you say?

>Yes Ed thinks this is evidence.  Funny.  It refutes his claim of "more than
>the other teams", but he thinks it is support.  
Unless you can prove that "the other teams" == "any other teams". 

>5) ???  Who knows where Ed will attempt to go for next...  Hey Ed, let's get
>back to the Stockton argument, or the Robinson argument, or whatever. I got
>a new book that just backs my ideas up greatly....
You must have written that book yourself, i.e. a book of contradictions. 
Let's see how you screwed up:

1) Meeks claim that such home calls happen everywhere. Yet I am still waiting
for his evidence to back up this claim: the list of home calls on every court.
When are you going to turn in your assignment?

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.

3) His admission of the 3-ptr as an instance of a type that is just home job
..... NO way to retract that. Why not refusing to let the 3-ptr as an
instance of that type. In other words, why not restrict what types Lor can
consider bogus or not? or restrict what instances belong to the type?

4) He can't argue that the 3-ptr belongs to a certain type Tj, but that's
incriminating evidence that the play belongs to a type that he charaterize
as home job. There is nowhere else to go.  Hey, why not go back and 
forth between "can't argue" and "don't agree"?

Just keep insisting that

a) Meeks doesn't consider the play bogus
-- doesn't have anything to do with the current argument

b) Meeks doesn't consider the play as an instance of types Lor consider bogus
-- Meeks thinks for Lor, trying to prove that Meeks == Lor

c) the characterization is only for the type, not the instances
-- that's typing/data abstraction is all about. 

At least some irrelevant insistence can prolong the argument, making
him think that he doesn't wimp out this time. Since he promised he
would argue until judgement day ...

5) He admit the characterization of the types I consider bogus is only
a generalization, i.e. have to wimp out with exceptions. Well, 
generalization kills. People get fired for that. Luckily you get nothing
more than an admission shoved down your throat.

6) He can't anything about the {instance of type} and {type being
characterized}. Why not use an instance of a different type and thus
the characterization doesn't apply. i.e. -1 has no real sqrt, the
3-ptr is not in Meeks bogus type thus the characterization of 
Lor bogus type doesn't apply.

7) When he can't argue about (6), why not use the currenlty phantom 
argument of "the play is not bogus"?

8) When his own admission of star/superstar/legent favoritism paints him 
into a corner, why not list some phantom superstar for all the teams
like Mitch Richmond, Derek Harper? So what if he also claimed that
a player like Richmond probably doesn't get the calls as a player
like Bird. 

9) Why not use the same Moses Malone as evidence of superstar favoritism
for both the 76ers and the Rockets in the early 80s? Or a couple years
of sevice of a superstar to equate to the tenure of Bird/McHale/Parish?
He doesn't have any concept of quantity discrepancy anyway.

10) Admit that "just" != "nothing more than", but still want to treat
two different characterizations of the types as just one.

11) Since the judgement day promise, he made another claim of "it's time
this thread stopped". However, what's new about Meeks' bogus words
of stopping? That's just one of his stupid tactics to try to have the
last say, like threatening to notify my postmaster and begging me to
not to reply to his messages...

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro