From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Hmmm... (Changing the rules)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:33:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.140323.21419@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>Once again, another contradiction.  You have stated publicly that 
>"I am only into flame wars...".  As such, how can it be any different???
>Or are you contradicting yourself again??
If (BIG IF) I claimed "I am into flames wars", it was directed to you, wasn't it? 

>Yes, actually.  And besides, what flame war???  More like bogus accusations
>and claims...
Yes, like claiming that "what you think I implied" == "what I said".

>Nope, I have made no claim saying that "I am only into flame wars..." as you
>have stated.  Only on a few occasions did I bother to get into any flame
>war with anyone about the Dolphins.  
Oh, so the flame wars exist, on more than one occasions, according to you.

>>Yes, like all the people you infuriated in rec.sport.football.college?
>All the what, two or three??  The total doesn't come anywhere near 
>your glorious totals Ed...
All the what? one? only Dave Meek? Well, you admitted a total of two
or three in college football, and a few in Dolphins vs Bills,
and that doesn't even include me. I only admit a total of ONE.

Seems like you have the honor.

>What an ass.  Big difference in comparing a team THIS year as opposed to
>81/84/88/89...  We are talking about which team was better, and the comment
>was made THIS YEAR!!  
Oh, we are talking about which team was better THIS YEAR, not on 10/7/92?
Better on 10/7/92 doesn't imply better THIS YEAR.

>However, you used various attributes in comparing the two teams...
>You used - records
>	 - head-to-head
>	 - strength of schedule
Yep, and the criteria are sequential. It's not three criteria being 
considered in parallel.

>But Ed, you are the person who liked to disallow "context" statements in our
>previous flame-fest...  
Regardless of context, nowhere did I mention Buffalo's 4-1 is different 
from SF's 4-1.  Only you fabricated it.

>And, besides..  According to you,
>First criteria... who has the better record
>Second criteria... who had the better head - to - head
Yep, so where did I change the rules?

>Ok, you have established that.  You have also made comments that strength
>of schedule and such didn't matter, as they didn't come into play either.
>Well, according to the league, in this situation, it doesn't come into play
>either.  At this point in time, based on equivalent records, and Buffalo
>winning the head-to-head, there is no need to go further.  
No need? but YOU HAVE ACCUSED ME OF USING HEAD-TO-HEAD in such
a situation, and thus a change of my rules of argument. You present this
a the PROOF of my changing of rules.

What rules have I changed? Can you answered?

I bet you have to ignore this question again the next time. Since there
is no more answer on forged evidence.

>Yet, you then make the claim of:
>"My observation is based on who the 49ers played too.  They didn't beat any
>of the unbeaten/1-loss teams."  
Right. So did I use strength of schedule to refute any ordering between
SF and Philly? No a chance, baby! So I mention a criteria that has nothing
to do with the existing ordering.

>Now it looks like you are using additional criteria to base you observations 
>on.  
So what? additional criteria which doesn't refute the ordering, so it means
this criteria is insignificant. I can use "my observation is based on which
team has a lower payroll" as criteria too, but that doesn't change any rules. 

>Criteria that the league would not be using in this case, so you 
>obviously are improvising and not using the league only criteria.  
In this scenario, Philly 4-0 and SF 4-1, this criteria is ineffectual too.

>Yet, you then bitch if someone thinks in a way that is not "league approved"...
and you bitch if someone thinks in a way according to the league ....

>Where is it "baseless"?  
Because you don't have any evidence that I am apply head-to-head in
a scenario of different records, eventually had to agree that I had indeed
stated the criteria, used the criteria, and concluded with "THERE IS NO 
NEED TO GO FURTHER".

What happened to your accusation? can't go any further?

>The opinion that it wasn't is shared by at least
>2 people.  Myself, and the person who was kind enough to send me the article.
Then you are stupid. I really appreciate that person for setting you up.

>No, just that you have complained against using alternate means of determing
>team strength before, as the league doesn't recognize those factors.  
When have I complained against using alternate means when the records are
tied? You care to quote it?

>Then, you make claims of using those criteria.  You claim that part of your 
>decision was based on who they played, i.e. strength of schedule.  
Nope, my decision was based on 4-0 and 4-1. Who they played didn't reverse
this decision, only enhance it, i.e. Philly won in criteria (1) and (3). 
You can say mentioning (3) is redundant, but it doesn't reverse any ordering.  

>As the 
>league would not be using this criteria in this case (as it is far down the
>scale, and according to you, we had already determined which team was better)
That's right. And we have already determined that Philly was better. I 
can also use an additional criteria:

  "Besides, Philly is also ahead of SF in the alphabetical order"

And this still doesn't contradict the use of records as the determining 
factor.

>Ever hear of the weekend???  
Ever hear of days after weekend? where are you usual never-give-up responses?
You mean your site doesn't keep the articles beyond a weekend?

>Funny, since those were direct quotes that they weren't your words...  
Funny, where were my direct quotes that "SF and Buffalo had different 
records while I apply h-t-h"?

>How many do you need... And why is the burden of proof on me???  
Because you claimed to have support on this issue that "Buffalo is better
than SF".

>We do??? And what media is that??   
Daily News, HBO, USA Today, John Madden.

>And I didn't realize that Vegas was in the business of determining 
>the best teams???  
So now you should know. Since SF and Buffalo don't meet in the playoffs, 
determining their ordering is, as in college football, a matter of opinions.

>Talk about bogus implications
>and claims.  They are in the business of making money.  And, they do not 
>always pick the best team to win, but rather pick WHICH team they think will
>win.  
Geez, Vegas pick WHICH team they think will win? What a dummy!
They lay down the odds according to which team THE BETTING PUBLIC thinks
will win. There must be a lot of people betting SF such that they have
the highest odds. 

>And besides, the last I saw, they liked Buffalo's chances a whole hell
>of a lot better than San Francisco's (for the SuperBowl).  
That's because Buffalo is still alive. When the both teams were still
alive, that wasn't the case.

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