From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:44:03 GMT
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!

Meeks 25th lie: article #25 post-stop.

In article <1992Aug21.140947.5752@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:

>No, it was only in a different context because one word was different and Ed
>thinks he can make it into something different, even though it was in direct 
>response to the original comment.
But that one word has different meaning. How can a characterization of
a different meaning be a direct response to the original comment?

>I didn't realize we lived in a binary world, Ed.  Last I looked, very few 
>things in life we "binary".  We have not been argueing over the past month
>over whether "just" means the same as "nothing more than". 
We are. This question of reference only has a yes/no answer. If yes
(identical), then it's a reference. If no (not identical, almost identical),
then it's not a reference. What's in between?

>Too bad???  Again, if you want to read something into a statement that was not
>stated, too bad for you.  
Oh, if you want to wimp out your statement with another meaning, too bad
for you.

>We have had that argument for awhile.  Their is no
>net.law stating that EdLo can read a statement any way he wants and try to make
>a point that is accepted by anyone.  
There is no net.law stating that Meek can interpret two statements of 
non-identical meanings as one statement either.

>Oh, sure, EdLo can read the statement anyway he wants, but we just don't 
>want to hear it.  
OH, sure, Meek can (mis)interpret it anyway he wants, but we just don't
want to hear it.

>And "my" interpretation is a wimp out??? I wrote the damn thing, I don't 
>need an "interpretation" of the statement.  
But you didn't know what you were writing about, not until I picked on 
it that you want to wimp out by interpreting "as just" to be "nothing
more than".

>I know what was meant by it.  It is left to you to "interpret"
>it. If you read a different interpretation, tough!!!  
Oh, then you can't argue my interpretation.

>Strange...  Sounds to me like you are trying to "wimp out" of the original
>discussion by trying to misinterpret the statement and make something out
>of it that makes it different than the original, which you admitted was no
>admission.
Lie again. Where did I allow you off the hook that there is no admission
of home jobs?

>Not "can't", just "not".  There are lots of things you say that I COULD argue
>with you over, but don't.  It isn't worth argueing with you over whether
>YOU think the Bird 3ptr was bogus.  That is an opinion you form on your own.
>If you state it as an opinion, as something you believe, then there is no 
>need to argue it.  If you state it as an example, no need to argue.  However,
>if you try to establish it as FACT, I (as well as others) have a problem with
>it.  
I am sure you don't have a problem. Because so far, you are still dodging the 
fact that the 3ptr belongs to the type CFTHTTWAFAM. I see your dodging
as an implicit agreement.

>What are we argueing about here???  Hard to say anymore, you have twisted
>the argument around so many times, it is hard to say... Let's see...
Geez, another summary. Another proof of not being able to refute the
fact that the play belongs to CFTHTTWAFAM.

>1) The Celtics get more favoratism than the other teams
>  - Ed not able to supply any real proof
No need to. You admit star/superstar favoritism. 

>  - Ed gets support of 4 others and declares victory
>  - Ed changes subject when 9 support Meeks and that line is lost
Tough luck to me. I didn't know that there are that many Celtic brothers
in the closet.

>2) Meeks "admitted" 3 things 
>  - bad call ... Ed twists the interpretation and ignores the obvious sarcasm
Lie. Use sarcasm of conclusive/inconclusive to lie about sarcasm of the
call being bad.

>  - home job ... Ed twists the interpretation and ignores the "type of things"
>                 comment as well as the two statement directly opposing the
>                 inclusion of the Bird 3ptr.
Well, if I twisted the interpretation, why are you still dodging the
call being in CFTHTTWAFAM? Nowhere are you able to refute the CFTHTTWAFAM,
so you have to make irrelevant cries, like the call is not in your bogus
set.

>  - refs give the Celtics the calls... Ed twists the interpretation and takes
> 	         a statement that was questioning HIS interpretation and he 
>		 tries to claim it is an admission...
Yep, like you reference of the two 3ptrs as "calls the refs gives". If
that's not true, there isn't even reason to question whether that is 
"proof enough" for me. You should have question "whether proof exists".

>  - Ed later admits that he f**ked up on this and he was wrong.
Oh, where is it?

>3) Now... Meeks said "just" instead of "nothing more than" in one place, so
>   Ed thinks he has an argument again...But, other than his attempts to prove
>   that the statements are slightly different semantically, he has done nothing
>   to show the relevance of the point.  For the point of the argument, what is
>   the difference?
Oh, the difference being "just" doesn't have the same definition as "nothing
more than". 

>  - Ed has yet to show any, he just wants to win at something, due to a severe
>    inferiority complex...
Yes, like your threat to cry for help from my postmaster, and your begging
me not to respond.... That's not even signs of inferiority complex, that's
sign of a crybaby....

>Anyway, let's put it this way as for as the "typing" is concerned.  
>When the "types of things" was stated, it meant just that, the "types of
>things".  The "type of thing" with the Bird 3ptr was "last second 3ptrs that
>were of a questionable validity".  This "typing" was that it was nothing
>more than/just home jobs ....  
Oh, so I can't consider CFTHTTWAFAM as the type I consider bogus. Another
attempt to prove that you determine what's bogus and what's not for me,
i.e. Lor == Meeks.

>So, "last second 3ptrs that were of a 
>questionable validity" are nothing more than/just home jobs.... Though I agree
>with the type, I do not necessarily agree with your set.  
Oh, so you don't necessarily agree with the play being in CFTHTTWAFAM (a fact),
do you? You don't agree with facts? Geez, what nerve!

>Though we both agree
>that the type exists, our individual sets that make up the type are different.
Really? tell me what's in your set of CFTHTTWAFAM. And tell me why
the 3-ptr isn't in your set of CFTHTTWAFAM.

>If you want to twist the meanings of things around and argue for monthes, fine,
>I will continue.. no problem.  However, you have spent the last month trying
>to make a stupid case out of nothing, and I have spent the last month
>debating and disputing your stupid claims.  
Well, stupid case out of nothing? You screw up in your generalization.
And so far you still aren't able to counter the type CFTHTTWAFAM, because
I know that type is a killer to you. The only way is to dodge it.

>You are never going to get any admission that I think nor said the Bird 
>3ptr was bogus, nor that it was a home job, or anything else.  
Oh, by totally dodging the killing point, now you are declaring yourself 
winner? Geez, being the judge and participant again?

You'll never out of a job. Saddam would love you as an advisor. 

Meek: See, we won the war because you Yankees aren't able to 
      conquer Iraq.
Stormin Norman: But our goal wasn't to conquer Iraq. We just want
                to kick you out of Kuwait
Meek: See, you can't conquer Iraq, thus we win. 

>All you have is your goofy attempts at semantic surgery to prolong a 
>meaningless argument.   
Because you screwed up your generalization, and you can't back out from it.

>I have tons of time to argue with
>you, if you like, but let's pick a new topic, ok???  This isn't ending 
>anything, and if you like, just agree and have the last word... There are tons
>of things we could argue about now...
As far as I am concerned, nothing is more interesting than this admission
stuff. Why would I let you off the hook when you show no clue whatsoever
to counter the "play X is an instance of CFTHTTWAFAM", "CFTHTTWAFAM is
a home job"?

BTW, you said in the previous article that you would refute  
"if a characterization is true for a type, then it is true  for all
its instance". Try to dodge it again?

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com