From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: AFC TEAMS STINK
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 09:38:50 GMT

In article <By2yG0.8D2@acsu.buffalo.edu> v073pzuy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Damned for all time...) writes:
>So tell me, Mr. Lor, in your infinite wisdom, is the Bills' 1-point loss to the
>Giants in SB XXV offset by their 3-point win on the road, thus making them the
>better team?
So what if they were the better team? or even considered the favorites by Vegas?
the Bills ACTUALLY LOST. 

>I eagerly await your answer...
That's my answer. Since the upset ACTUALLY HAPPENED, there went any opinion
based on any hypothetical matchup between the Bills and the Giants. Too bad
the war didn't prohibit the game to be played, or you guys would have had
the claim of an opinion-based championship, like college football. 

>The problem is that you try to form ABSOLUTE *opinions*, rather than 
>"ABSOLUTELY...form an opinion."
Of course, because we are forming any opinion on something with only
a binary outcome -- either the Rams or the Broncos. The original claim
of this thread was

  "the other NFC teams could beat the AFC champs"

When you get to the bottom line, any opinions formed is either true or false. 
Mine is absolute: true, there aren't too many possibilities lying around.

>>>What you are
>>>saying is that the Broncos had no shot because the Niners and Saints were
>>>"better" teams, yet the very NFC playoffs that year prove you wrong, since
>>>the Saints and Niners were knocked off by supposedly "inferior" teams.  
>>But the upsets ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 
>No shit.  I just said that.
Then what does it have to do with the Broncos? Did the Broncos ACTUALLY
beat the 49ers in the 1987 playoffs?

Yes? if you can tell me the score, I'll admit that the claim "the other
NFC teams could beat the AFC champs" is false ....

No? So your dreamed upset didn't happen. If people have to pick 49ers vs
Broncos in Jan. 1988, smart money would be on the 49ers. Of course, maybe
your money is dumb money ...

>Wrong.  I, for one, consider ALL possibilities I can come up with.  You just
>consider your own, and say that "this is to be."  
You can consider ALL possibilities. When you get to the bottom line in a 
hypothetical matchup, you still have to pick a winner. 
People with brains usually pick the team which they THINK IS GOING TO WIN 
(i.e. most of the time, the superior team). People with no brain usually try 
to dodge the pick by "considering all possibilities", give vague answers like 
"anything can happen", "since there exist upsets, it discredit picking the 
superior team" ....

>In short, you are blind,
>consider only your side of the argument, and present all controverting facts
>(such as the Redskins beating the Niners in Candlestick) as a simple case of
>facts getting in the way of your accurate analysis.
I still haven't seen your side of the argument yet. Instead of arguing against
the "49ers would beat the Broncos in the 87 playoffs", you are just using
the "anything can happen" logic to wimp out.

>Could UCLA beat the Bills?  Sure.  They might even do it on the first try.
>Not likely, but very possible.
Oh, so if I ask you to pick a winner in UCLA vs the Bills, what are you going 
to tell me?

1) You are not into hypothetical matchups. You are just forced into this thread.
2) Anything can happen, i.e. you have no ability to form an opinion.
3) You pick the Bills. Or is that possible? since you advocate "anything can 
happen" if you happen to root for the underdog in the hypothetical matchup.

>You are a shithead.  *You* brought up UCLA-vs-Bills, moron.  
Oh, so the others who brought up "other NFC playoff teams vs AFC champs" must 
be a moron and shithead too, since it's only a hypothesis.

>As you say,
>"Stick to the facts."  I said the Redskins beat the Niners at the 'Stick.
So what's the score of that game? 

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com