From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:34:03 GMT
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!

Meeks's 24th lie: article #24 post-stop.

In article <1992Aug21.143341.22342@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>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.
But your logic claims that the type CFTHTTWAFAM was a home job. That's 
enough for me.

>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.  
But I have power to stop me from including -1 into my set of positive 
integers, because -1 isn't a positive integer.  

You have no evidence that -1 is in my set of positive integers, because
I never considered so.  So your -1 example is irrelevant.

>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.  
That's right. 

>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."  
What is "MY set of types of things you consider bogus are nothing 
more than home jobs that happen everywhere"? Never seen such a type/set/class
before.

Oh, no way to back out your generalization, and you have to define a new
type called "MY set of types of things you consider bougs are nothing more
than home jobs that happen everywhere"? That's exactly what I said on 8/13,
you have to wimp out with a contingency, 

  "types of things you consider bogus, CONTINGENT UPON MY AGREEMENT, as 
   just ..."

>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.  
Who cares about your set? Your set doesn't refute my argument at all,
namely 

1) the Bird 3ptr belongs to the type CFTHTTWAFAM, 
2) I consider CFTHTTWAFAM bogus, 
3) (2) => CFTHTTWAFAM is a home job.

Nowhere in your characterization mentioned anything about "my set of ..."

>If you want to include it in your set, fine, but I don't agree.  
But you still can't tell us why? why isn't the Bird 3ptr an instance
of "calls for the home teams that we argued for a month"? Just a bold
disagreement implies that you can't justify it. And based on your 
characterization, I know you can't.

>Just like above, -1 would not belong in my set of positive integers 
>have real sqrts but may exist in yours. Understand??? 
No, -1 doesn't belong to my set of positive integers or the type mentioned
in the characterization either. So this analogy is irrelevant.

>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 "<".
Oh, so just has a definition that can only be "==", another definiton that can
be "<="? Even if (big If) that's true, nope, then it's not the same, because 
"nothing more than" doesn't have a definition that can be "==" alone, 
"nothing more than" can only mean "<=". So "just" can mean only "==" alone, 
"nothing more than" can't mean "==" alone.

>But according to the poll, all teams received some degree of favoratism at
>home...  Hence, favoratism was perceived to happen everywhere..
What poll? do you care to publish the result of the poll? I haven't seen
any. At least I know favoritism wasn't perceived to happen at the Delta
Center.

>They can't??? Well, it seems that according to the poll they are receiving
>more favoratism.. 
The poll wasn't about 13 years, since they included Utah and Detroit as #2. 

>They are the current back-to-back NBA champions, and one of
>the fore-runners to three-peat.
This is irrelevant.  What does this have to do with the 13 year period?

>But now you act as if "superstar" favoratism is the only factor and that it
>affects everyone similarly.  
Not only superstar, there are also stars and HOFers favoritism.

>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.
Oh, you excluded Tiny (already in the HOF) and DJ (a sure HOFer)? 

And how many years of service does the Celtics had on the Big Three? 12+12+13=
37. How many years of service does the Lakers had on Kareem/Magic/Worthy? 10+12+
10=32. That's a five years advantage.

Nope, not the same. 

>So, you admit seeing the sarcastic remark.  Just what did the remark refer to
>then??  
That the 7 vs 3 is not conclusive. That's not about the calls were bad or not.

>The comment you think is an admission!!!
Yep, it is. The sarcasm has nothing to do with calls being bad. You only
tried to say that the 7 vs 3 was not conclusive.

>>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.
Well, what you said does not refute the characteristic of typing/
generalizations.  It means you can't dispute that when a characterization
is true for a type, then it's true for  all its instance. Trying to 
dodge it by an irrelevant point means you can't dispute this fact.

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