From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Boston Bias
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:39:21 GMT

Evidence of Meeks' lie: article #4 PS (post-stop). 

In article <1992Jul23.174152.18327@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>Good ol' ed...  can't read for sh*t...  A home job is basically the same
>as a bogus call.  
Oh, now it's basically the same as a bogus call. It used to be a call that 
can go either way, like your charge/block call. I see, so all charge/block
are bogus call.

See, I predicted you finally have to equate bogus calls to fair calls.

>A bogus call is not necessarily the wrong call, just 
>considered wrong by you(or I, or anyone else) .  
So that's good, you consider a wrong call (in my eyes) just a home job...

>All the things we looked at have been examples of "bogus" calls.  
I don't know. You keep redining bogus call, like Trent Tucker's 3-ptr.
Sometimes it's bogus, sometimes it's a call that can go either way.
I bet you don't even know what a bogus call is.

>The Ehlo foul on Lewis was a bogus 
>call, according to myself and many others.  You may think it was the correct 
>call.  Thus, it wasn't a bogus call to you.  It goes the other way with the 
>Bird 3ptr.  You think it was bogus, I think it was the correct call.  
Yes, you also think that type of call as a home job. So that type of call
is both a home job and a correct call. 

>Both can be used as examples of "home jobs", etc... 
It can't. The Ehlo phantom "foul" happened in Boston Garden. You haven't
defined "road job" yet .....

>though doing so does not imply belief of it being bogus.  
Oh, you just said "it was a bogus call", and now does not imply being
"bogus". Geez, do you really realize what you are talking about?

>I guess you consider the Lewis incident as
>a bogus call, since you included it in the list of bogus calls against the
>Celtics, right???   
Where did I include that? 

>That's it.. Hey Nate.. Ed believes that Ehlo mercilessly
>hacked Lewis and it cost the Celtics the championship.  
Yes, bold claim without evidence.

Fortunately, I didn't make stupid statements like "what you consider bogus
are merely ....." and get no way to retract them.

>Oh??? "home job" is defined in your dictionary???  Which edition was that???
>Job has many definitions, and it isn't just the one you wish to attribute
>to it.
Job has many definitions, but we are talking about the one with the negative 
connotation. We definitely aren't talking anything about "fairness", or
you wouldn't have changed the definition of "home job" again and again.

>Basically, you are right.  Some examples of what are not really "judgement" 
>calls would be things like not awarding the 1-1 situation when the team is 
>over the limit... Letting a player continue to play when he has fouled out..
>Calling a foul on player A, but then giving player Bs number to the side, etc..
>In other sports, the infamous Colorado situation was not a "judgement" call,
>but an error.  
These are all judgement. The judgement, at that moment, was that "Colorado
was only playing a 4th down". 

>Or, in baseball, when the count or # outs is inconsistent
>(it still amazes me that this happens with as many people who supposedly 
>know what they are doing.)...
At the time the call is made, it is still judgement. Unless you get
evidence that a ref deliberately makes a wrong call due to bribery, 
all rule implementations are judgement.

>>Well, if you want to question my moronic logic, the appropiate statement
        ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>is "even if A, then ~B", where A is "the list of bad calls", B is 
>>"conclusive".
>
>So, you are ADMITTING you logic to be moronic, right???  Based on the way
>in which you like to argue, you just admitted you have been using moronic
>logic...
I am not. Did you see the "if you want"? See, you have no way to back out
from the assertion of the premise. NOw you want to get back to the logic
again?

>Well, how about Bis, Jim Mann, the UMASS guy, etc...
Where did the UMASS guy join the admission argument? He only told you to
stop.

Where did Jim Mann join the admission argument? 

Where is Bis?

>Because it wasn't part of the accusation.  I didn't accuse you of always 
>hacking the messages, just that you had been doing it.  
Then you didn't tell the WHOLE TRUTH, because your accusation of cut-and-paste
didn't mention it was a short hand for the initial accusation, as in
<1992Jul02.145910.68944@uvmark.uucp>:

  "because you cut and paste what you want and leave things out of 
   the sentnece or paragraph in question, to make it look like you 
   are right." 

rather than 

  "because you cut and paste to refer to your initial accusation".

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com