From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Cut & Paste
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:11:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsk.1992Jul21.051138.10877
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jul20.141527.52124@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>But neither is that proof that the 7 were bad either.  It was breaking the
>argument down and looking at only one part of it, that of your claim that
>your totals established any kinds of truth.  
Where is the break down? You meant "in the history of the game, 7 bad calls
favoring the Celts vs 3 agianst ... inconclusive", or did you really mean
"conclusive"? 

>No, 3 or 4 people have noted your cut/paste activity.  If you want to 
>redefine what cut/paste is, feel free, but it doesn't change the fact that 
>you have been doing it.
Well, 3 or 4 people have also missed my initial accusations on your admission.
And who are they, Nate and Jim, both Celtic fans on your side, so what does
it prove? nothing more than your buddies defending the Celtics.

>Not an admission of the 7, rather a disagreement that the 7, EVEN IF THEY
>WERE TRUE, is not very conclusive.
Well, you didn't say "EVEN IF THEY WERE TRUE". Where's the EVEN IF? Oh, you
mean you can add words in the statements retroactively? 

>But, it is obvious that the statement, taken as a whole, does not support
>you, and when confronted with this, you change to only taking the part of
>things you wish...
Well, I made the accusation and used the short hand IN THE SAME ARTICLE. 
Well, how did you confront me after the 40th but before 60th line of the same 
article? please tell me.

>>>But why, if I agree with you, would I state TWICE that I did not agree??  
>>Because that's the usual denial tone of an accused.
>But Ed, I stated it in the same statement.  
There is no reason to make the second sentence, which supported
my accusation, if you hadn't believed in it.

>Why would I sound like the accused
>when I hadn't been accused of anything on that comment at that point?  
From <1992Jun29.163717.17271@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>:
  "At least we could get Bis and Meek saying that these bogus calls
  are merely home jobs that happen anywhere. That's an admission of the
  happening. Their only hope is that since it happens to everybody else, then
  it's not guilt ...."

Then came your denials of bogus calls in <1992Jun29.202559.31131@uvmark.uucp>,
in which you repeated my same statement, and supplied me the evidence, between 
two denials. 

See, I wasn't trying to frame you. I knew what you said in March but I didn't
keep the article, so I got no reference. Yet after my accusation, YOU SAID THE
SAME THING I ACCUSED YOU OF SAYING. See, I recognized your belief, you 
couldn't get away with it despite all these denials.

>Sounds like you have your timeframes confused.   Sounds to me like it was more
>like a person making sure that a comment was not taken in the wrong way.  
>However, Ed decides to ignore the safety lines and only read the other part,
>thus supporting his lie...
Yes, I accused you of saying X. You indeed said X, probably without noticing it,
after my accusation, so it was a lie?

If that was a lie, why didn't you make sure that it was a lie by NOT saying
X? was X really your belief? or were you really that stupid?

>But it's not an admission of anything...  
It's an admission that my examples of bogus calls are nothing more than
home jobs.

>Showing the first reference doesn't make it a lie.  If it does, than you 
>are lying in this instance, since my first comment on "home jobs" stated that
>the Bird 3ptr was not bogus and not a home job.  
Then again, is a contradiction, because you know I considered the 3-ptr as
bogus and you consider it home job.

>Never said your "initial accusation" was cut/paste.  Just that your 
>subsequent references were.
Oh, only the subsequent reference of my initial accusations were cut-and-paste. 
OK, if that's you definiton of cut-and-paste, no problem, because you then
know damn well what the initial accusations are. 



>>
>>>Home jobs, by my definition, are calls that go the way of the home team,
>>>usually happening at times when calls could go either way... Things like
>>>charge/blocking, goaltending, did he get the shot off in time, etc...
>>>As well as situations SUCH AS (but not including!!!!) the Bird 3ptr.  
>>Right, it shouldn't include the Bird 3-ptr, because it was not a call that 
>>could go either way. It's either beyond the line or not, it's black and white.
>
>But it could go either way because it the judgement of the ref as to whether
>his foot was on/over the line, and whether it was on/over the line before the
>ball left his hand.  Let's face it, "non-3ptr" is almost impossible, because if
>his foot truly came down before he released it, it more than likely should have
>been a travel.  So, due to the judgement aspects of the call, it's not black
>and white.
So? the definition of a 3-ptr is black and white, the implementation is not.
Of course, the implementation of all calls are judgement (visual and mental) 
of the refs. Name one that isn't. If so, then all calls can go either way. 

>There are almost no "black and white" calls in basketball.  It is still left
>to the judgement of the ref.  
Your definition of judgment call and calls that could go either way means
there is never any bogus/bad calls in sports. 

>>BTW, have you ever heard that the Trent Tucker 3-ptr as merely a call
>>that could go either way? Or the USA/USSR call in 72? or the Colorado fifth
>>down?
>Yeah, the Trent Tucker was a call that could have gone either way.  
OK,.

>The others,
>no, because they were violations that occured in static time, not real time.
So? In the real-time judgement of the refs, they thought that Colorado 
was only playing the 4th down, so judgement call, could have gone either way.
No bogus call at all. Unless you meant the refs deliberately cheated, yet
you have no evidence.

Why don't you just tell us that there is never any bogus call in your book?

>This is why you are accused of cut and paste.  You take a statement that has
>3 lines, two of which are very strong statements of opinion, and the other
>general comment.  You cut out the strong statements of opinion and try to 
>establish an opinion with nothing but the other line.  
Yes, like you still try to defend my accusation of you saying "bogus call".
Seems like you can't argue anymore without making a strawman argument. Why
don't you just cry "I am not a murderer ...."

>Without the surrounding
>lines, it is possible that the middle statement could have had two meanings.
>With the two surrounding lines, the middle statement had an implied opinion
>attached to it.
Why implied opinion? You admit that it's a "home job", you denied it as 
"bogus calls".  Keep contradicting yourself. 

>But you have never shown admission.  Not one comment that stated that my 
>opinion was definitely in your favor.  
"Just that what you considered bogus was nothing more than home jobs
that happen everywhere". Admission of "home job".

"in the history of the game, 7 bad calls in favor of the Celtics vs 3 against
... Hmmm, sounds conclusive to me". Admission of "bad call".

"So in your context, since over the last few years, you can name as many
as 2 3pt incidences, that is proof enough for you that the league is in
the Celtics pocket and the refs give the Celtics all the calls". Admission
of the 2 3-ptrs as calls the refs gave.

No, you never admit "bogus call". You can deny that allright.

>Just fragments that if put in the wrong context, could support your statement.  
It's not even fragments. These are complete sentences, unless that's an
admission that you didn't know what you were talking about.

>However, I have on numerous times
>stated a definitive opinion.  In every statement of opinion, I have stated
>that the call was not bogus/not home-job.  
"not bogus" was true. not "home-job"? that contradicts your statement again.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com