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: 19 Aug 92 14:15:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug18.175747.25085@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.142511.33071@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>Meeks 20th lie: article #20 post-stop
>
>>Well, "just" is defined as "barely", "within a small amount", "merely"...
>That's still not "nothing more than". I saw "just" defined as precise and
>exact.

Who cares what you "saw" it as.  Your interpretation of a sentence does not
concern me in this instance.  You "saw" it like you wanted to see it, as 
another way to prolong the argument with semantics, as you no longer have
anything to say about the original arguments..

>
>>Doesn't need to.  The ellipsis shows continuation of a previous statement
>>from the point of ellipsis.  
>But you didn't have a previous statement of "just home jobs". 

Nope, but I did have a previous statement of "home jobs..."
>
>>It does not show a "whole" quote.  The 
>>continuation was of the "definition" of home jobs originally used, that
>>being "home jobs that happen everywhere".
>But that's not evidence of "home jobs originally used", because you
>used the term in a totally different context -- a different 
>characteriation.

How is it "totally different"??? One word changed, a word which can mean the
same thing, or nearly the same thing.  This does not imply "totally different".

>
>>Well, "just" is defined to be "barely", "within a small amount", "merely",
>>as well as "exact or precise".  "nothing more than" implies equal or less.
>>Seem about the same to me.
>"Exact or precise" != "equal or less" So your 2nd characterization was 
>not equal to your 1st one.

"Equal or barely" == "equal or less". You want to read something else into
it, fine... But, too bad...

>>Because the type is agreed upon, the individual instances are not. 
>Lie. In article #17 post-stop:
>
>   >>2) Bird's 3-ptr is an instance of type Tj
>   >No one argues you including the instance.
>
>You got no choice. Type Tj is "calls for the home team that 
>we argue for a month". Don't like it? I'll use another type Tk which
>is "calls for the home team that Bis admitted as wrong". Go ahead,
>argue the facts.

Not argueing and agreeing are very different concepts dumb fuck...  Saying
that I am not argueing, or no one argues, is not saying "Oh, I agree with
that".  Argue that fact...
>
>>>For example, positive integers (a type) just have real square roots. 
>>>How can any instance of positive integers not have a real square root?
>>But, I agree with this.  If were to use the example of the number -1 as an
>>example, I would not agree with you, yet still agree with your equation.
>Irrelevant, -1 is not an instance of the type mentioned in the 
>characterization: POSITIVE INTEGERS.  

Exactly.  Bird's 3ptr is not an instance of the type.. ie Not a bogus call.
However, if you want to use it to give an example of the type, fine.  You
could use -1 as your instance of your type and I would say the same thing.
"-1 is not a positive integer.  The types of things (positive integers) you 
consider do have real square roots.  However, -1 is not a positive integer."
Sound familiar.  Should...

>in the characterization.  Again, your next argument is going to be: no 
>one agrees about you including the instances, which contradicts your 
>"no one argues you including the instances".  

No one argues != Agrees...

>>that are home jobs...  And, what was said, for the hundredth time, is that
>>the type of thing (Tj) are just home jobs..., not the "instance".  
>But even you say it a thousand time, you still can't refute the
>fact that the if a characterization is true for a type, it's also true
>for all its instances. You have no way to refute this logic except, in
>a moron way, using a non-instance (e.g. -1 doesn't have a real square root) 
>as counter-example.

Exactly, and that is the one of the basis of the arguement.  Allowing your 
inclusion of a type that I don't agree with does not mean that I agree with
the type.  I have "refuted" your moronic claim a number of times with a number
of different examples.  
>
>>So, you claim that the Celtics get more favoritism than the other teams.
>>Then, you use as evidence the "poll", which shows that there were more than
>>a few times tied or better than the Celtics, which refutes your claim.  
>The poll wasn't about 1980-1992.

Oh yeah, were is your proof of that.  Did the poll say, specifically, 1992??
Or, did you state in the beginning that this "favoratism" discussion was about
the years 1980-1992??

>>It does support mine, as the comment of "home jobs
>>that happen everywhere" seems to fit the poll, as it seems people agreed that
>>all the teams got some degree of favoratism.  
>Oh, tied for 2nd == home jobs that happen everywhere? 

No, the fact that the rest of the teams got some degree of favoratism at home
means "home jobs that happen everywhere".  The poll didn't say 
"Chicago, LA, and Boston get favoratism at home where the rest of the league
got none". Since the poll showed that favoratism/home jobs happened everywhere,
it agrees with my "home jobs that happen everywhere"

-- 
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"