From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Cut & Paste
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:35:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.142138.27108@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>Well, you didn't say "EVEN IF THEY WERE TRUE". Where's the EVEN IF? Oh, you
>>mean you can add words in the statements retroactively? 
>
>Hey, you can take them out, why can't I put them in...
Oh, fine, you mean you have to put in "EVEN IF" to mean what you really desire?
Great, that's an admission that the original statements do not include any
hypothesis at all, i.e. you flat out stated the premise, you didn't 
hypothesize the premise. 

>Yeah, I deny the comment you make, TWICE.  And inbetween, I state that things
>"you consider", not "I consider", not "these bogus calls".  
Well, you stated them as "home jobs". Are you going to deny that?

>Not the change of
>your comment.  You state "these bogus calls", which refers to the Bird 3ptr
>as being bogus, and possibly others.  I state, "never said that these were
>bogus calls", which directly contradicts your point of "these bogus calls".
>Then, it is continued with "The type of things you consider bogus", which
>implies that the "these bogus calls", are "things you consider bogus".  I then
>finish with "No admission that the calls specified were bogus."  
Still want to wimp out your admission of "home jobs" by claiming your 
denials of "bogus", huh?

>>See, I wasn't trying to frame you. I knew what you said in March but I didn't
>>keep the article, so I got no reference. Yet after my accusation, YOU SAID THE
>>SAME THING I ACCUSED YOU OF SAYING. See, I recognized your belief, you 
>>couldn't get away with it despite all these denials.
>
>Nope, close but not quite the same thing.
Well, what I accused you of saying <1992Jun29.163717.17271@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>:
  "At least we could get Bis and Meek saying that these bogus calls are
   merely home jobs that happen anywhere."

In <1992Jul02.153505.57473@uvmark.uucp>:
   "No, I call the types of things YOU consider bogus as just home jobs ..."

>>If that was a lie, why didn't you make sure that it was a lie by NOT saying
>>X? was X really your belief? or were you really that stupid?
>
>But you said X, I stated X', which was not quite X.  
Well, you said X' on June 29, but carelessly said X on July 2.

>But no admission that the calls specifically in question are bogus.
But admission that the calls specifically are "home jobs".

>According to you, "bogus" == "all bad calls", where "home jobs" are just a
>subset of "bogus".  How can I state time after time that the calls were not
>"bogus", thus, "not bad", and yet you read into a statement that they are 
>somehow allowed into the "home jobs" category, which is supposedly a subset
>of the "bogus" category, which has already been declared as not true.  
Easy, the "you consider bogus.... just home jobs" is actually your belief.
The denials are you usual defense which are just noise. Except you didn't
realize that your belief somewhat contradicts your denials. That's why you
have to re-define home jobs as "calls that can go either way" to wimp out.

>The only thing I see is that you read the middle statement in such a way as to
>give the sentence a contradictory meaning, which was not what was stated.
Hey, if you give a contradictory statement, it's not my fault for me to
read it that way.

>If you wish to twist things around to make no sense, feel free, just don't
>expect anyone to believe or support you...
Oh, you need people to support you again? Why don't you make up some phantom
e-mail support?

>But I guess you are used to that feeling..
No, Lakers fans are all secured. We don't care about admitting the
favorables from the refs. 

>But not admission that the Bird 3ptr was a home job.  
But you admit what I consider as bogus as a home job. That's a blank check.

>I admit freely that
>home jobs occur.  So, yes, it was an admission of "home job", but not an
>admission that the Bird 3ptr was bogus, nor that it was a home job.
It's not the same kind of admission as what you said on June 29 and July 2.

>>"So in your context, since over the last few years, you can name as many
>>as 2 3pt incidences, that is proof enough for you that the league is in
>>the Celtics pocket and the refs give the Celtics all the calls". Admission
>>of the 2 3-ptrs as calls the refs gave.
>
>How is this proof?   I state that "you can name as many as 2 3pt incidents"
>This is not admission of anything but the fact that you can name 2 3pt
>incidents.  An incident != bogus call.  
Nope, the 2 3pt incidents are proof enough as calls the ref gave the Celtics.
Not accusing you of admitting bogus calls either, just "calls the ref gave".

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