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: 17 Aug 92 14:25:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.050605.15056@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>Meeks 19th lie: article #19 post-stop
>
>In article <1992Aug16.181824.4628@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>Not "things you consider bogus", not "these bogus calls", but the
>>types of things...
>These bogus calls CONSTITUTE THE TYPE. You had no argument with that the last 
>time. Regret now?

No.  They consitute the type for you.  That still does not constitute the
calls themselves.  
>
>>You say no difference, and then you state the difference.  The difference
>>is that you decide to classify the events into the types of events, and 
>But you said it yourself just in the last article. You can't argue about 
>the classification, i.e. the Bird 3-ptr is an instance of the class/type Tj.
>And now you are telling me that I can't classify the 3-ptr into type Tj?

Nope.  Classify it all you want. Just don't try to equate it to me saying
that the Bird 3ptr was a home job.

>>Ahh... Ed Lor admits he fucked up..  For a while now, he has been trying to
>>say I admitted the calls were bogus.  
>Only because you denied it. But now your characterize a certain play as
>home job is enough to get you spouting all the lies...

So, you admit you fucked up.. Good, we now have a number of examples of
Ed fucking up...

>>Even though the subsequent statement included and ellipsis,
>>which by every English style guide book I have every seen means part of the
>>quote was deleted, he tries to use the comment as incriminating. Hmm..
>>Pretty weak Ed...
>Yes, two statements with different words, and ellipsis means they are the
>same statements? Tell me which English style guide book tells you that
>"just" == "nothing more than".

Well, "just" is defined as "barely", "within a small amount", "merely"...

>>Because the ellipsis only denoted the ending.  
>But the ellipsis can't change the words before the word "home jobs". Show
>me the English style book that says:

Doesn't need to.  The ellipsis shows continuation of a previous statement
from the point of ellipsis.  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".
>
>>This is a generalization of the types of situations you think occur."
>Yes, so you are saying that "just" == "nothing more than"? Find me the 
>dictionary defining "just" that way.

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.

>>Yes... You got it.  "things" are instances of the type "types of things", but
>>does not mean "types of things = things".  So, in the comment concerning
>>"types of things ... home jobs that ....", you cannot just replace the
>>"types of things" with "things".
>Silly, I don't have to.  "things" are just instances of "types of things", 
>which are just home jobs, a description of the type. If the description
>is true for the type, how isn't it true of all its instances?

Because the type is agreed upon, the individual instances are not. 
Rock music exists.  Is Madonna a classification of Rock Music??  To some she
is, to others she is not.  
>
>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.
In my mind, the Bird 3ptr does not belong in the list, as it is not a bogus
job or home job, yet you including it in your list as an example is allowed.

>>It does not mean
>>that the "Bird 3ptr, along with the other home calls" are anything more than
>>the instances that make up the type.  The types of things are nothing more
>>than home jobs ....
>Oh, then what does "type" mean? I think "type of things I consider bogus",
>say, type Tj, at least have some instances in it. Are you now retracting
>your claim that you can't argue that the 3-ptr belongs to the type (Tj)?

Yes. Because I didn't say I can't argue that the 3ptr belongs to the type (Tj),
but rather to "you" including the instance.  
>
>1) the play X is an instance to type Tj
>2) type Tj is a type that Lor considers bogus
>
>and coupled with your 
>
>  "the types of things you consider bogus are just home jobs..."
>
>You are just saying that the play X is an instance of a type that's home job 
>                                                              ....(claim A) 
>
>You don't consider it home job? then you just contradicted yourself.

No, I do not.  I consider the type "Tj" to be the type of things
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".  
>
>>the fact that you claimed that you only said favoratism, not more than any
>>one else (since the poll showed the Celtics tied for second, as you pointed
>>out.)... Well...
>>
>><1992Jun29.223106.27006@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>>>Where? why are you so obsessed with 3-1? I can easily retract 3-1 and say
>>>4327-1 to make my point. The whole point was only the Celtics getting more 
>>>home jobs than the other teams.
>>So, exposure of the lie has now taken place.  The poll showed that, in the
>>net opinion, the Celtics do not get more home jobs than the other teams.
>1) The poll only showed the favoritism of this year, not the whole Bird
>/Magic era. Since you admitted the superstar favoritism, the Celtics have had
>the most stars/superstars/legend in the entire era. I don't know why. 
>Whenever I made a claim, you somehow foolishly backed it up in later days.
>
>2) So good, you still admit that the Celtics got more favoritism than
>all but one teams even in 1992.
>
>3) Oh, so the other teams == anyone else or any other team? 
>

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.  

Hmm.. Ed, are you sure you want to use the poll as "evidence", as it doesn't
support your claim.  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.  So... let's look at things...

Ed first claims the favoratism story...  Gets a debate..

1) Claims early victory when he has 4 other people give supposed support of
his claim (by supplying evidence, etc..).   However, when the numbers quickly
turn in favor of the Dirty Dozen (at least 9-5 last I looked), he drops this
line of attack.

2) He tries to veer the discussion away from his stupid remarks by getting into
a semantic argument that Meeks made an admission based on 3 comments he made.
However, when it is pointed out his obvious errors by Meeks and others on the
net, he admits he backs away from this claim.

3) He then tries to veer the discussion away from (2), which he admits he
screwed up on, to a subsequent remark, trying to say that it was instrumental
in his discussion.  However, the only difference between this comment and
the comment used in (2), which he admitted he was wrong on, are the use of
the word "just", as opposed to "nothing more than", and the use of the 
ellipsis to imply "home jobs that happen everywhere", as opposed to home jobs.
However, Meeks has pointed out that "just" can easily be used to imply
"barely", "merely", which is almost identical to "nothing more than".
At worst, "just" means ==.  Nothing more means "==" or less than.  As it has
been pointed out that "just" can also mean "barely", which is the same as less
than, where is the difference?   Additionally, the whole discussion of
home jobs...  vs. home jobs that happen everywhere.  Where it the so-called
difference that matters in this discussion?  Ed has never agreed with the
premise of "home jobs that happen everywhere" and has claimed that all that
said was "home jobs".  So, semantically, the two statements are nearly
identical, yet Ed sees the second statement as "evidence" where the first
statement he admits he fucked up on.   Hey Ed... Explain this to us, would you.

4)  When he notices the fact that he screwed up on 1, screwed up on 2, and 
it appears he is screwing up on 3, he tries to veer the discussion away again
with comments that the "poll" that was taken was in his favor.  Funny, 
Ed makes an initial claim, with no supportable evidence, that the Celtics
get more favoratism than the other teams.  The poll shows that, though the
net thinks the Celtics were tied for 2nd, the were clearly not in the lead.
Yes Ed thinks this is evidence.  Funny.  It refutes his claim of "more than
the other teams", but he thinks it is support.  

5) ???  Who knows where Ed will attempt to go for next...  Hey Ed, let's get
back to the Stockton argument, or the Robinson argument, or whatever. I got
a new book that just backs my ideas up greatly....

Dave
-- 
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"