From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:55:14 GMT
Keywords: I'ts over

In article <1992Aug18.170155.21500@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> csquared@coos.dartmouth.edu (C Squared) writes:
>Why do I get the feeling that these were forged????
>They were only posted from the same site 3 minutes apart.
>No, that has nothing to do with it.

The only thing I want to know: why would someone with any knowledge of usenet
trying to do it? Must be a high schooler doing intern at BNR.

>From cbnewsk!att!dptg!ulysses!allegra!princeton!jvnc.net!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!cunews!nrcnet0!bnrgate!bmerh85!bnr.ca!stu1d46 Wed Aug 19 11:43:24 EDT 1992
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Notice the path

>Article: 20508 of rec.sport.basketball.pro
>Path: cbnewsk!att!dptg!ulysses!allegra!princeton!jvnc.net!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!cunews!nrcnet0!bnrgate!bmerh85!bnr.ca!stu1d46
>From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
>Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
>Keywords: I'ts over
>Message-ID: <1992Aug18.150120.24198@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Notice the message ID of Lor's message.

>Date: 18 Aug 92 15:01:20 GMT
>References: <1992Aug14.184847.14389@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <1992Aug16.181824.4628@uvmark.uucp> <1992Aug17.050605.15056@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <1992Aug17.142511.33071@uvmark.uucp> <1992Aug18.145810.23996@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
>Sender: news@bmerh85.bnr.ca (Usenet News)
>Distribution: usa
>Organization: AT&T
>Lines: 38
>
>In article <1992Aug18.145810.23996@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Notice the mesage ID of Meeks' message.
                  
But anyway, this may be one big step to prove that Meeks == Lor. At least
we know the two people work at the same place, namely BNR.

>|> Ed,
>|> 
>|>   It's time we finally settle this dispute.  I'm sure that normal people on
>|> the net are getting sick and tired of reading endless posts from the two
>|> of us about a meaningless situation.  I'll be happy to admit that every team
>|> gets thier share of home calls, and it seems that the Celtics get a few
>|> more because they are the winningest team in NBA history, and because of the
>|> mystic of the Gardens.  You are right Ed.
>|> 
>|>   So, to everybody on the net, I'd like to offer a formal net.apology for 
>|> carrying on this argument way too long.  Sorry about the wasted bandwidth.
>|> 
>|> --
>|> 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"
>|> 
>
>Dave,
>
>  Yeah, I think we've pretty much beat this argument to death.  I'm getting
>a little tired myself of just arguing that you did say this or I said that
>and nonesense along those lings.  Anyway, you were right in trying to end
>this pointless obsession between the two of us.  It got way out of hand.  I
>really could care less which team gets more home calls, and if Boston just
>happens to get a few more than anyone else, then so be it.  I'm sure that
>eventually things will even out again and the refs will be giving the home
>calls to somebody else.  Who really cares anyway??
>
>  So, following Dave's example, I'd also like to post a net.apology and
>promise that one little comment will never be blown out of proportion by
>myself again (at least i n the near future).
>
>--
>                                          Edward Lor
>                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
>

At least <stu1d46> knows something. Meeks is always the first one to wimp
out. And thanks, at least you know "the Celtics always get a few more" and
"if Boston just happens to get a few more than anyone else, then so be it".

Except Meeks is the one not admitting this premise explicitly, even though
he has done it implicitly in many occasions.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com