From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Cut & Paste
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:39:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jul20.143701.72188@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>First, why would have to "explicitly say so"?? It seems even in the many cases
>I have "explicitly said so", you have ignored those comments.  
Well, then why didn't you? You could easily have just made 2 admissions instead
of 3, and make this argument less interesting.

>Let's look at these admissions... Supposedly admissions that I stated that
>the Bird 3ptr was bogus.
Poor boy. Want to defend a phantom accusation again?

>1)  "So, in your context, since over the last few years, you can name as many
>as 2 3pt incidences, that is proof enough for you that the league is in the
>Celtics pocket and the refs give the Celtics all the calls..."
>
>2)  "So, in the history of the game, the current ratio is 7 bad calls for 
>Bostons favor, 3 for...  Hmmm. sounds conclusive to me..."
>
>3) " Nope.. nice try.  Never said that these were bogus calls.  Just that the
>types of things you consider bogus are nothing more than home jobs that
>happen everywhere.  No admission that the calls specified were bogus."
>
>
>In 1, I admit that Ed Lor believes that all the proof he needs that the
>league is in the Celtics pocket and that the refs give the Cs all the calls
>is that he can name 2 3pt incidences that he considers bogus.  Nowhere do
>I not anything that states that I believe anything about the Bird 3ptr, nor
>that I even believe his 2 3pt incidences to be true, nor his equation of
>it being proof.
Well, (1) is "So, in calls not involving fouls (my context), since over the 
last few years, you can name as many as 2 3pt incidences, that is proof enough 
for you ....". You don't believe the equation of it being proof, no problem.
Where did you question the premise at all? want to make up some "even ifs"?

>In 2, we have a sarcastic remark that, like the (1) comment, questions his
>logic.  In this case, it question the logic used in (1), but doesn't imply
>that I believe the Bird 3ptr to be bogus, or that I believe his logic/proof.
Again, you only question the logic? You didn't question the premise. As
a matter of fact, that's an assertion of the premise. 

>In 3, we have the middle statement which says the things he considers bogus
>are nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere.  This is probably the
>statement he likes to reference the most as "proof"..  However, in almost 
>every reference since the 1st, he leaves out the 1st and 3rd sentence, and
>states that I thus state that the Bird 3ptr was bogus... Seems to me like the
>general equation (since Ed likes equations) are 
>a = Birds 3 ptr incident and the others he lists.
>b = things Ed Lor considers bogus
>c = home jobs that happen everywhere.
>
>In Ed Lor's mind, (b) == d, e, f, g... as well as (a), where (d), (e), (f), and
>(g) are other incidents Ed considers as bogus (Trent Tucker, etc..)
(d), (e), (f) ... undefined.

>In Ed Lor's mind, (b) includes (a), as well as many other things, so, if he
>uses just the middle comment, he gets
>b == c, thus (a), which is a subset of (b), is a home job as well
>
>However, when taken as a whole, it should read:
Taken what as a whole? Your denials of "bogus calls" have no bearing on what
I considered bogus.

>(a) !Subset (b), thus (b) == (d), (e), (f), and (g),  but !(a)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Incorrect. The Bird 3-ptr and the others I listed are considered bogus BY ME.
So (a) is a subset of (b).

>			or
>		      (b) == (b) - (a)
>(b) == (c)
>(a) !Subset (b), thus (b) == (d), (e), (f), and (g),  but !(a)
>			or
>		      (b) == (b) - (a)
What equation is that? Why (b) == (b) - (a)? (a) is not an empty set.

>So, in final analysis, it seems the only actual admission is that
>(z) == (c), where (z) == (b) - (a)
Where did you get the (c) == (b) - (a)?

In final analysis, you don't even know how to do a proof. Give us a break,
don't show your 1st grade math on the net...

>So, we have established an admission that Dave Meeks has stated that he :
>1) Questions Eds logic of relational equations
Yet accept the premise.

>2) Sarcastically questions Ed's logic logic again...
Again, accept the premise.

>3) says that the things Ed Lor considers bogus, with the exception of the
>Bird 3ptr and other calls mentioned at the time, are nothing more than home
>jobs that happen everywhere.
That's another lie. You knew in advance that I considered the Bird 3-ptr 
bogus, just that you don't consider it bogus != I don't. 

>So, yes, Dave Meeks made 3 admissions.  Unfortunately for Ed, none of them are
>admissions of what Ed wants to hear.  
And try to use some bogus proofs as proofs, like Meeks not consider bogus ==
Ed not consider bogus. Is this an attempt to prove that Meeks == Ed?

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