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: 14 Aug 92 18:48:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsk.1992Aug14.184847.14389
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

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.

>In defense of that statement I replied
>"Just that the types of things you consider bogus are nothing more than
>home jobs that happen everywhere.".  If I had actually said what you tried
>to say I did, then what you have been argueing about the last week about this
>point could be considered true.  
Who cares what I tried to make you say? You don't have to reply anything.
Just ask me for the evidence, like your usual strategy. You didn't have to 
say anything stupid. Did you consult your lawyer?

>Your comment of "these bogus calls are merely
>home jobs that happen anywhere." is saying events == homejobs... <-ellipsis!!!
>I denied your statement and stated what I "stated", that being the
>now infamous "types of things you consider bogus are nothing more than home
>jobs that happen everywhere.".  
That's not what you said on 7/2.

>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 tried to get me to agree that it was the events.
>I refused, stated flat out that "Never said that these were bogus calls." and
>then said that it was the "types of things" that were home jobs...<-ellipsis!!!
Lie. You didn't say "types of things were home jobs". You said "types of things
are nothing more than home jobs"on 6/29.

>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 

  "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.

>Well, since we are nit-picking, at least let's stop with your lies...
What lie? lying that you made the above statement on 7/2?

>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.

>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. 

>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?

>>1) I consider type Tj bogus
>>2) Bird's 3-ptr is an instance of type Tj.
>Doesn't matter still.  No one is argueing your inclusion of the type Tj.
>No one argues you including the instance.  
Oh, OK, you can't argue about (1) and (2).

>The arguement is your idiotic attempt to attribute your inclusion of the 
>instance with my agreement with it's being bogus/non-bogus.
Oh, so this is an admission that your statement on 7/2 was really what
I accuse you of saying lately. Now the argument is my idiotic attempt
to make you say that the call was bogus.

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? 

>See, here is your inherent flaw.  The types 1, 2, 3, &4 are included in
>the equation of "types of things == home jobs that happen everywhere".  
Oh, where did you say a equation of "types of things == home jobs that
happen everywhere" on 6/29? I only saw your comparision of "types
of things <= home jobs that happen everywhere".

I am not interested in dealing with "more than" or "less than", just the 
equality.

>You keep trying to change things from types, to element of the type.
Now I am giving you the types. You can't handle them. And have to resort
to a lie "== home jobs that happen everywhere", and the currently non-
existent accusation that "Meeks considers the call bogus".

>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 .... 

Any dispute?

>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"?

>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?

And BTW, it is not "nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere". It's
"just home jobs ....".

>I only included the "types of things", and in a semantic,
>nit-picky discussion, it protects me for you assinine attempts...
I am talking about types of things too. You said that there is no argument
earlier. The argument was just that "I attempted to make you say event 
X was bogus". 

>But I stated the other way, just because Lor considers event X bogus does
>not mean that Meeks considers it bogus as well.
Strawman argument again.  What does it have to do with the "home job" argument?

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