From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 18:48:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!

In article <1992Aug11.183919.19423@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>
>Meeks 11th lie: article #11 post-stop.
>
>In article <1992Aug11.010053.20880@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>And what divine act of god gave you the freedom to do this??  Your so-called
>>blank check only covered the CATEGORIES, and not the specific calls themselves.
>But I consider that specific call in that category, that's what your
>"type of things you consider bogus" is about. Whatever event I consider bogus,
>I classify it as an instance of the type of events i consider bogus.

But no one said I agree with the specific calls, just the types.  If you
want to consider a specific event bogus, fine. I may/may not agree with the
call (or your interpretation of it), but agree that the type of situation 
is the aforementioned "homejobs that happen everywhere".

>
>>No one ever said that you could classify each event as you wanted...
>But that's what you say, "things I consider bogus". I can collect all
>the calls I consider bogus and make a type (class) out of it. In this
>instance, BG home calls, which includes the Bird 3-ptr. I can also
>collect other calls I consider bogus and make another type (class) out
>of it, e.g. MJ home calls ...

No.. it was "types of things you consider bogus".  Let's not start the
cut/paste discussion again.  But yes, you can collect all the events you
want and make a class you consider bogus, such as "BG home calls".  I agree
then that "BG home calls", your class of events are home jobs that happen 
everywhere.  I don't agree that things like the Bird 3-ptr, etc, are bogus
however..


>
>>That's right.  So "after buzzer calls" are the types of things EL considers
>>bogus.  The Bird 3ptr is "the event " EL considers bogus.  
>This is one instance of that type. 

There are dozens of instances of that type.  I don't have to agree with the
instance to agree with the type, or agree with the classification. I agree
Arabs have committed acts of terrorism.  However, this does not mean that
I believe that every Arab has committed terrorist acts, nor does it mean I
believe that every act of terrorism was done by an Arab. 
>
>>No one said that 
>>the events you consider bogus are anything, just the "types of things"...
>But then why did you give a certain characterization to that "types of things"?
>If the call is an instance of that type, that characterization is certain true
>for that particular instance.

Since when??? I agree that a circle is round.  Just because you say that some
square box you show me is round does not mean I believe it to be so.  I still
believe circles to be round, just don't believe you example of a circle to
be a circle.  Or, to help you out, I believe that the types of situations you
are considering to be bogus, ie..  calls you consider incorrect within 
Boston Garden, are nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere.  I do
not agree that every individual call you consider bogus to be bogus as well.

>>What stupidity??  Bogus calls is the type we argue about.. True.  Event X was
>>stated to be not bogus.  
>By whom? I didn't state anything like that. I stated the opposite.

By me!!

>
>>What's your point???  
>Your ass is not covered at all. Why didn't you say something like "type of
>things I (Meeks) consider bogus are just home job"?  Then you would have had
>no admission.

Didn't need to.  Stated the other way still has not admission.  

>
>>Bogus calls can be considered
>>your type, if you like.  Agreeing that bogus calls happen does not mean that
>>event X was bogus.
>But you knew well in advance (from 6/19 to 7/2) that this particular incident
>was an instance of my type. Yet you still make such a characterization of 
>my type. And now you have no way to retract that.

Don't need to .  I agree with the characterization of the type.  I don't 
agree with the specific case in question.  I agree that their have been calls
made at home in various arenas that were bogus.  I agree that these are home
jobs.  I don't agree that the Bird situation was one of them...
>
>-- 
>                                          Edward Lor
>                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
>                                          


-- 
David T. Meeks                    ||" We are jigsaw pieces, aligned on the 
VMark Software, Inc.              ||  perimeter edge, 
uvmark!davem@merk.com             ||  interlocked through a missing piece"
davem%uvmark@merk.com             ||" ...This world is totally Fugazi"