From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:10:19 GMT
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!

Meeks' 21th lie: article #21 post-stop

In article <1992Aug19.140103.37230@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>Who cares what you "saw" it as.  
You don't? then you wouldn't argue with me for two months. 

>Your interpretation of a sentence does not
>concern me in this instance.  You "saw" it like you wanted to see it, as 
>another way to prolong the argument with semantics, as you no longer have
>anything to say about the original arguments..
Dumbo, the original argument, since mid-July, has been your admission
of the home job. Notice the subject line. We didn't argue about Meeks == Lor
in June, did we?

As far as my interpretation is concerned, THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING.
If you don't care about my interpretation of your "home job ...", or my
accusation of your admission, why are you here?

>Nope, but I did have a previous statement of "home jobs..."
But the previous statement of "home job" was in a different characterization,
i.e. different context. Since it's a different context, "home jobs ...."
couldn't have meant the home job in that different context.

>How is it "totally different"??? One word changed, a word which can mean the
>same thing, or nearly the same thing.  This does not imply "totally different".
Because you said it yourself, they are nearly identical, which doesn't mean
identical. In a binary world, non-identical means totally different. 
Are we talking about binary here? We are talking about whether "just"
DOES OR DOES NOT mean the same as "nothing more than", no gray area in between.

>>"Exact or precise" != "equal or less" So your 2nd characterization was 
>>not equal to your 1st one.
>"Equal or barely" == "equal or less". You want to read something else into
>it, fine... But, too bad...
Oh, then my accusation is valid. You can only wimp out by your own 
interpretation of "just", namely "exact or precise" == "equal or less",
too bad ....

You can't argue my interpretation, i.e. accusation. You can only wimp out 
with another interpretation.

>>You got no choice. Type Tj is "calls for the home team that 
>>we argue for a month". Don't like it? I'll use another type Tk which
>>is "calls for the home team that Bis admitted as wrong". Go ahead,
>>argue the facts.
>
>Not argueing and agreeing are very different concepts dumb fuck...  Saying
>that I am not argueing, or no one argues, is not saying "Oh, I agree with
>that".  Argue that fact...
Oh, so you can't argue about the fact that the play is  an instance of
the type.  In other words, the play is an instance of a type that is 
a home job. You said it yourself. Then what are you arguing about here?

And you got no choice but AGREE that the call belongs to the type. If that's
not a fact, you would have jumped on it 3 posts ago. Now you have to 
dodge this fact and switch to something like "no one argues YOU including ..."
and "not arguing and agreeing are different". 

>>Irrelevant, -1 is not an instance of the type mentioned in the 
>>characterization: POSITIVE INTEGERS.  
>Exactly.  Bird's 3ptr is not an instance of the type.. ie Not a bogus call.
Oh, so Bird's 3ptr is not an instance of the type "calls for the home team
that we argue for a month" (CFTHTTWAFAM)? I dare you dispute that. 

Where is "(the generally agreed upon) bogus call" mentioned in the 
characterization? Geez, your argument is the same as "7 is not an instance 
of the type since it doesn't have an integer sqrt".

>However, if you want to use it to give an example of the type, fine.  You
>could use -1 as your instance of your type and I would say the same thing.
>"-1 is not a positive integer.  The types of things (positive integers) you 
>consider do have real square roots.  
But -1 is not an instance of my type (the type mentioned in the 
characterization), because my type is specifically POSITIVE INTEGERS.
So what does it refute? nothing.

>>in the characterization.  Again, your next argument is going to be: no 
>>one agrees about you including the instances, which contradicts your 
>>"no one argues you including the instances".  
>
>No one argues != Agrees...
But you get no choice but AGREE that the play belongs to the type
CFTHTTWARAM. Go ahead, distort this fact.

I bet from the next message on, you will delete all these forced agreement
because you can't do anything else about them. Agreeing them? it means
incrimination. Disagreeing them? it means distortion.

>Exactly, and that is the one of the basis of the arguement.  
Oh, so you can't argue that "a characterization is true for a type,
it's also true for all its instances". Good.

>Allowing your inclusion of a type that I don't agree with does not mean that 
>I agree with the type.  
Oh, so your 7/2 sentence allowed me to say that "the 3-ptr is an instance
of a type that's a home job", you just don't agree with it. That's an
admission that your own logic allows me make a statement that you don't 
agree with. That's evidence of somebody doesn't know what he's talking about.

>I have "refuted" your moronic claim a number of times with a number
>of different examples.  
Your insistence of 

1) the 3-ptr is not bogus, 
2) only the type is a home job, not the instances, much alike "only positive 
   integers have real sqrts, 1, 2, 3, 4 ... do not have real sqrt". 
3) not agreeing that Lor including 3-ptr as an instance of the type 
   CFTHTTWAFAM 

So I see, your refutation is

1) irrelevant to the characterization,
2) contradiction to typing,
3) distortion.

>Oh yeah, were is your proof of that.  Did the poll say, specifically, 1992??
>Or, did you state in the beginning that this "favoratism" discussion was about
>the years 1980-1992??
Yep. On June 26, when we talked about the favoritism the Lakers got for
winning championships and dominating the west, and the Celtics
favoritism over the Cavaliers in the 1985 playoffs.

>No, the fact that the rest of the teams got some degree of favoratism at home
>means "home jobs that happen everywhere".  The poll didn't say 
>"Chicago, LA, and Boston get favoratism at home where the rest of the league
>got none". Since the poll showed that favoratism/home jobs happened everywhere,
>it agrees with my "home jobs that happen everywhere"
Where did the poll show that favoritism/home jobs happened everywhere?
I dare you show it, unless that's a poll made up in your ass.

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