From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:06:05 GMT
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!

Meeks 19th lie: article #19 post-stop

In article <1992Aug16.181824.4628@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>Nope, never said "these bogus calls", but rather, "types of things you consider
>bogus".  
That's good enough for your admission.

>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?

>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?

>translate that into the equation as part of the equality.  
Because you said it yourself, you aren't arguing about the classification.
And you thought you were arguing about "your admission of the play being
bogus", which I clarified that it isn't the argument.  Then what are you 
arging about?

>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...

>Now we see he backs off that statement.
That's not NOW, I backed that off more than a month ago because of your 
shameless denials. You still think that you are arguing against "Meeks didn't 
claim the call was bogus"? Geez, do you realize what the admission is about?

>However, the only difference between
>the two comments was whether or not the final part, that being the "home jobs"
>comment was just home jobs or home jobs that happen everywhere, as the original
>comment stated.  
No, the initial accusation was "Meeks considers the play bogus", which you 
denied and I thought was over a month ago.  The current accusation is "Meeks 
implies the play as home job", which is based on your admission on 7/2.

You still can't do nothing about this but trying to refute the initial claim.
You are pretty outdated ....

>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".

>Again, it is "types of things", not "things".  There was no admission that
>the call you consider bogus, but the types of things.
No, but then your stupid generalization placed that call into ONE TYPE OF
THINGS, too bad.

>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:

 "nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere" == "just home jobs ...."

in other words, an ellipsis not only representing an omission but also a 
replacement of words in other places.

>If I wanted to quote the
>first part, I would either quote it or denote it with an ellipsis as well.
>As I was only quoting the "home job" part with it's ending, the quotes weren't
>needed.  
But you give a totally different characterization on the "home job ...." part.
One is "not >", the other one is "=".

>And, as the entire comment was in reference to the statement on 6/29,
Since it's a different charactization. Where is the evidence of reference?

>your assinine statement of "no evidence of reference" shows your absolute 
>stupidity.  
Your assinine statement of "reference" shows your shameless habit to lie.

>The comment was in reply to your comments on my statement from 6/29
>so, this was the entire evidence of reference needed.  We were commenting on
>the 6/29 statements, so the reference is inherent.
Well, I don't see that. When I see the different characterization, I see that 
as a completely different sentence.

>So, you now admit it was a futile attempt.  So we now have Ed admitting that
>he was wrong over the past month in trying to use the statements of 6/29 as
>"evidence" that I said something which, in fact, I did not. 
Well, I have been using your 7/2 comment as ammo against you for a month.
And now you still have to resort to saying the play is not bogus.

>Let's look at the comments:
>6/29:
>"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."
>7/2:
>"No, I call the types of things YOU consider bogus as just home jobs...
                                                    ^^^^^^^
>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.

>(concerning Ed saying I admitted the Bird 3pt as bogus)
>"Yes, I do deny it.  And no, the statement I made recently was not about
>Bird's 3pt, but about the things you consider "bogus".  
Oh, so it was about "the things I consider bogus", not the type of things
I consider bogus. Thanks, but I don't need this anyway.

>Things like this occur all around the league.  
That's still an unproven statement. You have been talking about the listing
for all other teams for over a month. Where are they?

>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?

For example, positive integers (a type) just have real square roots. 
How can any instance of positive integers not have a real square root?

>>Congratulations, I gave that up a month ago. So you didn't say that the call
>>was bogus. I am not accusing you of saying that call bogus, happy now? 
>Great, glad you realized the error of your ways...
Yep, yet after a month, you are still trying to dodge the current accusation
by keep refuting an old accusation. This is just evidence that you can't
handle your admission of "the type are just home jobs" ==> the property is
true for all instances of the type.

>>Oh, you said it yourself earlier, you could't argue that the 3ptr belong to 
>>type Tj. So it means the Bird 3ptr, along with other home calls 
>>that make up types/classifications Tj, are just home jobs .... 
>Nope, if means that Ed Lor consideres the Bird 3ptr to be an example of his
>"types of things".  Again, you twist the comment around.  
Oh, then how did I twist the comment around. You apply a characterization
to this type of things. Are you denying it now? 

>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)?

>Because the "just home jobs ..." was made in reference to your questioning the
>original comment of "nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere.".
But "just" has a different meaning from "nothing more than". Since you made
a sentence of different characterization, that's not evidence of reference.

>The ellipses was used because I was tired of typing "home jobs that happen
>everywhere", and since that phrase had been used a number of times already,
>I used the ellipsis as the finishing part of the phrase, that being "home jobs
>that happen everywhere".
Since you made the "just" characterization the first time on 7/2. There is 
no evidence that the ellipses meant the omission of a different characterization
previouly made.

>No problem with this.  I did not "say" that the Bird 3ptr belongs to a type
>that Lor considers bogus, but I did make a comment that agrees with Lor's
>inclusion of the event in his types.  
Yep, you claimed that you had no argument with that.

>It does not belong to a type that Meeks
>considers bogus, nor does Meeks consider it bogus, 
Who cares? It's not the current argument. Your continuous repitition of 
this claim doesn't support or refute anything.

>nor does Meeks consider it a home job.
Wow, let's see, you have no argument that 

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.

I bet the next time you will have to resort to the same argument again: only 
the types are home jobs, not the play, never say that the play is a home job.

A phantom argument which isn't able to refute (claim A) at all.

>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? 

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com