From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:33:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: uvmark.1992Aug21.143341.22342
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.171459.17818@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>Meeks 22th lie: article #22 post-stop
>
>In article <1992Aug19.140103.37230@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>
>>Never said you couldn't consider the play of the instance of the type that
>>you consider bogus.  Just said that I don't find the particular play to be
>>bogus.  The ol' "for the sake of argument, you can use it"
>Oh, how does "you don't find the particular play to be bogus" refute 
>"the play is an instance of a type that Lor consider bogus"? You mean 
>you don't find the play bogus ==> I can't find the play bogus? 

Yes you can.  But don't try to say I think it is a home job.

>
>>Well, you admit that I didn't say the call was bogus.  I also never said the
>>call was a home job, just that the "type of call" was.  Big difference.
>I don't see any difference because that's all typing is about. Instead of
>saying "1 has real sqrt, 2 has real sqrt, 3 has real sqrt ....", you say
>"positive integers have real sqrts". You don't have to say "the call was
>a home job" to be incriminated.

See, the main difference is right here.  I said, in the example, 
"positive integers have real sqrts".  I believe in the type just like the
statement of "types of things you consider bogus are nothing more than home 
jobs that happen everywhere".  However, I have no power to stop you from 
including -1 into your set of positive integers.  I don't believe -1 to
be a positive integer, just like I don't believe the Bird 3ptr from being
bogus, but can't stop you from saying it belongs in you set.  In my mind, the
Bird 3ptr was not bogus, and does not belong in MY set of "types of things you 
consider bogus are nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere."  
I believe that the type of thing/situation that it involved fits, but I would
not include the Bird 3ptr as an example in my set.  If you want to include
it in your set, fine, but I don't agree.  Just like above, -1 would not belong
in my set of positive integers have real sqrts but may exist in yours.
Understand??? Probably not, but who cares...
>
>>either ==, or <.  Nothing more than means ==, or <.  Not a lot of difference.
>Oh, so "exact or precise" is defined as "<"? Just can mean == or <? Where did
>you see it? 

Just has various definitions.  One of them is "exact or precise", which you
interpret it as.  That would be "==".  It also can mean "barely" or "merely"
which would be "<".

>So it's not favoritism that happened everywhere.

But according to the poll, all teams received some degree of favoratism at
home...  Hence, favoratism was perceived to happen everywhere..
>
>>is evidence enough.  You gave me the so-called "blank check".  Greater than
>>the other teams?? Didn't seem like this is true if the "other team" is Chicago
>>or the Lakers.  
>Well, if the other team is Chicago? Who did Chicago have to counter Parish/
>McHale/Bird/DJ before their recent championships? they had MJ? but Boston 
>had Bird. The MJ excuse had always been "he doesn't have the supporting cast".
>So as a team, Chicago can't get more favoritism than Boston over the 13 years.

They can't??? Well, it seems that according to the poll they are receiving
more favoratism.. They are the current back-to-back NBA champions, and one of
the fore-runners to three-peat.

>
>The Lakers? it's close. But the Celtics have more stars/superstars/HOFers than 
>the Lakers over the same timespan. The Celtics still get more superstar/HOFers 
>favoritism than the Lakers, unless you retract your superstar favoritism 
>yourself. 

But now you act as if "superstar" favoratism is the only factor and that it
affects everyone similarly.  And, I don't know... I would say
Kareem/Magic/Worthy is as good or better than Bird/Parish/McHale.  
Kareem - perhaps the best center ever, most points, etc...
Magic  - perhaps the best pointguard ever, probably along with Bird and Jordan
         one of the 3 best to ever play the game
Worthy - a great player, one of the best small forwards of all time, especially
         in big games

vs
Parish - very good center over a large number of years to make it to HOF.
McHale - perhaps the best low post player ever, good defensively
Bird   - perhaps the best all-around player to ever play the game, easily the
         best small forward.

This is the Celtics with 1 legend, 1 HOFer and 1 great player who will make the
HOF while the Lakers had 2 legends, and 1 great player who will probably make
the HOF.
>
>I only see your sarcastic remark in a separate sentence. So you deny
>making that sentence "So, in the history of the game .... 3 for ..."?
>or your "the current ratio is 7 calls for Bostons favor" has a different
>meaning?

So, you admit seeing the sarcastic remark.  Just what did the remark refer to
then??  The comment you think is an admission!!!
>
>>Wrong.  Admission of the 3ptr as something YOU believe to be bogus and I then
>>claim that the type of situation being a home job.  Why bother refusing what
>>you use as types, because I may not be familiar with every situation you are.
>>Therefore, I allow the use of any call into the group, as it does nothing more
>>than establish a type, the type of which has been equated.
>Yep, then in a type statement, all its characterizations are true for its
>instances. Dispute that.

No need to.  I can't dictate what you include in your list, but that doesn't
mean anything.  We each have different lists that make up the same type.
See the other post for further details.
>
-- 
David T. Meeks                    ||" We are jigsaw pieces, aligned on the 
VMark Software, Inc.              ||  perimeter edge, 
uvmark!davem@merk.com             ||  interlocked through a missing piece"
davem%uvmark@merk.com             ||" ...This world is totally Fugazi"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro