From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 18:18:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!

In article <1992Aug14.184847.14389@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>Meeks 17th lie: article #17 post-stop 
>
>In article <1992Aug14.145205.60027@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>
>>No, you tried to state that I had said that "these bogus calls are merely
>>home jobs that happen anywhere."  
>Yep, that's why I tried, you denied saying that in March, yet on 7/2,
>you provide the same evidence again.

Nope, never said "these bogus calls", but rather, "types of things you consider
bogus".  Not "things you consider bogus", not "these bogus calls", but the
types of things...

>>This is saying "types of events" == homejobs.
>>Note the difference.  
>No difference. These events can be classified into type of events. It's 
>impossible that I consider these events bogus but not classifiable into a few
>types of events that I consider bogus.

You say no difference, and then you state the difference.  The difference
is that you decide to classify the events into the types of events, and 
translate that into the equation as part of the equality.  

>>You made the statement of "bogus calls == home jobs that happen anywhere".
>>I pointed out the problem with that equation by denoting that the "bogus calls"
>>part was incorrect.  Pretty damn clear to me...
>Yes, so the bogus calls part was incorrect. You deny calling them bogus, no
>problem.  But you incriminate yourself on 7/2 by 

Ahh... Ed Lor admits he fucked up..  For a while now, he has been trying to
say I admitted the calls were bogus.  Now we see he backs off that statement.
For a few weeks now, he has been using as proof my initial comment on 6/29,
which has since seen he can't do.  So, now he has backed off to trying to
take a subsequent comment and using it.  However, the only difference between
the two comments was whether or not the final part, that being the "home jobs"
comment was just home jobs or home jobs that happen everywhere, as the original
comment stated.  Even though the subsequent statement included and ellipsis,
which by every English style guide book I have every seen means part of the
quote was deleted, he tries to use the comment as incriminating. Hmm..
Pretty weak Ed...
>
>  "the types of things you consider bogus are just home jobs ...."
>
>At least I got you admitted that this call, along with possibly other calls
>that make up a type T1 that I consider bogus, are just home jobs.

Again, it is "types of things", not "things".  There was no admission that
the call you consider bogus, but the types of things.
>
>>The first time I made a comment like this was in 
>><1992Jun29.202559.31131@uvmark.uucp>, I used the ellipsis in 
>><1992Jul02.153505.57473@uvmark.uucp>, after a number of other comments 
>>using the whole text.  I often use ellipsis to denote continuation.
>But the words before the ellipses are different, "just" is different
>from "nothing more than", so there is no evidence of reference to the
>statement on 6/29.

Because the ellipsis only denoted the ending.  If I wanted to quote the
first part, I would either quote it or denote it with an ellipsis as well.
As I was only quoting the "home job" part with it's ending, the quotes weren't
needed.  And, as the entire comment was in reference to the statement on 6/29,
your assinine statement of "no evidence of reference" shows your absolute 
stupidity.  The comment was in reply to your comments on my statement from 6/29
so, this was the entire evidence of reference needed.  We were commenting on
the 6/29 statements, so the reference is inherent.
>
>>But again, you have spent a great deal of time attempting to prove that
>>I "admitted" the Bird 3ptr was bogus.  
>So it was a futile attempt because your inane denials. But at least such
>an attempt made you offer the incriminating evidence on 7/2, so it was worth
>the time spent. 
>
So, you now admit it was a futile attempt.  So we now have Ed admitting that
he was wrong over the past month in trying to use the statements of 6/29 as
"evidence" that I said something which, in fact, I did not. So, he is left
with this stupid attempt at trying to prove that the statements on 7/2
were the incriminating ones.
Let's look at the comments:
6/29:
"Nope.. nice try.  Never said that these were bogus calls.  Just that the 
types of things you consider bogus are nothing more than home jobs that
happen everywhere.  No admission that the calls specified were bogus."
7/2:
"No, I call the types of things YOU consider bogus as just home jobs...
This is a generalization of the types of situations you think occur."

Still "types of things", still those that "you consider bogus", and still
nothing incriminating about the actual events themselves.  In the follow-up
comment, I even explain that it is a "generalization of the types of situations
you think occur."

And, on 7/1:, when he questioned the 6/29 statement, I then replied...
(concerning Ed saying I admitted the Bird 3pt as bogus)
"Yes, I do deny it.  And no, the statement I made recently was not about
Bird's 3pt, but about the things you consider "bogus".  Things like this
occur all around the league.  Some are called, some are not.  The issue
in question, Bird's 3ptr, was the right call, IMHO."

Looks to me like you are reaching pretty deep here Ed...

>>And, you have attempted to do so
>>in part by trying to prove that, since I said "types of things == home
>>jobs that happen everywhere" , and you have been trying to say that 
>>"types of things" == "things", which is obviously not true...
>"things" are instances of the type "types of things" doesn't mean "types 
>of things = "things". You know anything about typing?

Yes... You got it.  "things" are instances of the type "types of things", but
does not mean "types of things = things".  So, in the comment concerning
"types of things ... home jobs that ....", you cannot just replace the
"types of things" with "things".
>
>Congratulations, I gave that up a month ago. So you didn't say that the call
>was bogus. I am not accusing you of saying that call bogus, happy now? 

Great, glad you realized the error of your ways...

>>In our example
>>"types of things" = Type 1, 2, 3, 4
>>"things" = each individual instance/call
>Oh, you said it yourself earlier, you could't argue that the 3ptr belong to 
>type Tj. So it means the Bird 3ptr, along with other home calls 
>that make up types/classifications Tj, are just home jobs .... 

Nope, if means that Ed Lor consideres the Bird 3ptr to be an example of his
"types of things".  Again, you twist the comment around.  It does not mean
that the "Bird 3ptr, along with the other home calls" are anything more than
the instances that make up the type.  The types of things are nothing more
than home jobs ....

>>the ellipsis imply the continuation of a quote, the original quote being
>>"home jobs that happen everywhere".
>Lie again.  The original quote being "nothing more than home jobs that 
>happen everywhere".  The quote I mention is different, "just home jobs ...".
>How is "just home job ...." related to "nothing more than home jobs that happen
>everywhere"?

Because the "just home jobs ..." was made in reference to your questioning the
original comment of "nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere.".
The ellipses was used because I was tired of typing "home jobs that happen
everywhere", and since that phrase had been used a number of times already,
I used the ellipsis as the finishing part of the phrase, that being "home jobs
that happen everywhere".
>
>>Nope.  It is still the original statement.  However, I didn't see 
>>"the types of things you consider bogus are nothing more than home jobs that
>>happen everywhere, INCLUDING THINGING EACH INDIVIDUAL EVENT THAT MAKES UP THE
>>TYPE AS BOGUS".  
>That was an obsolete argument. That's was then, this is now.
>Currently you are just ACCUSED of saying that the Bird 3-ptr belongs to
>a type that Lor considers bogus. It doesn't belong to a type that Meeks 
>considers bogus.  Any problem with that?

No problem with this.  I did not "say" that the Bird 3ptr belongs to a type
that Lor considers bogus, but I did make a comment that agrees with Lor's
inclusion of the event in his types.  It does not belong to a type that Meeks
considers bogus, nor does Meeks consider it bogus, nor does Meeks consider
it a home job.


Oh, and by the way... You dared people to state where you made mention of
any of your earlier arguments concerning the Celtic favoratism, dealing with 
the fact that you claimed that you only said favoratism, not more than any
one else (since the poll showed the Celtics tied for second, as you pointed
out.)... Well...

<1992Jun29.223106.27006@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>Where? why are you so obsessed with 3-1? I can easily retract 3-1 and say
>4327-1 to make my point. The whole point was only the Celtics getting more 
>home jobs than the other teams.

So, exposure of the lie has now taken place.  The poll showed that, in the
net opinion, the Celtics do not get more home jobs than the other teams.
-- 
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"