From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:04:38 GMT
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!

Meeks' 13th lie: article #13 post-stop

In article <1992Aug12.184842.60481@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>But no one said I agree with the specific calls, just the types.  
You don't have to. That call belongs to the type. What do you think "you
(Ed Lor) consider bogus" means?

>If you
>want to consider a specific event bogus, fine. I may/may not agree with the
>call (or your interpretation of it), but agree that the type of situation 
>is the aforementioned "homejobs that happen everywhere".
Nope, you statment on 7/2 was "home job ....".

>No.. it was "types of things you consider bogus".  Let's not start the
>cut/paste discussion again.  But yes, you can collect all the events you
>want and make a class you consider bogus, such as "BG home calls".  
That's right. "BG home calls" is a classification/generalization of a 
collection of individual events, which include the Bird 3-ptr. 

>I agree then that "BG home calls", your class of events are home jobs that 
>happen everywhere.  
My class of events are "home jobs ...", like you said on 7/2. Are you
going to deny it?

>I don't agree that things like the Bird 3-ptr, etc, are bogus
>however..
Nobody asks for your agreement. As long as you said something that gives
a characterization of a type that the Bird 3-ptr belongs to, that's fine.

>>>That's right.  So "after buzzer calls" are the types of things EL considers
>>>bogus.  The Bird 3ptr is "the event " EL considers bogus.  
>>This is one instance of that type. 
>There are dozens of instances of that type.  
Oh, you mean there are dozens of instances of the type "BG calls that I 
consider bogus"? Great, thanks for the arsenal.

>I don't have to agree with the
>instance to agree with the type, or agree with the classification. 
You don't have to. I determine the instances for the type "type of things
I consider bogus", you don't.

>I agree Arabs have committed acts of terrorism.  However, this does not mean that
>I believe that every Arab has committed terrorist acts, nor does it mean I
>believe that every act of terrorism was done by an Arab. 
But "Arabs have committed acts of terrorism" is not the same as "that
type of people (Arabs) are just terrorists ..." The latter is the kind 
of generalizing, racist remarks that get Al Campanis/Jimmy the Greek 
fired. You made a stupid generalization that incriminated youself. 
Now you want to wimp out of its meaning.

>Since when??? I agree that a circle is round.  Just because you say that some
>square box you show me is round does not mean I believe it to be so.  I still
>believe circles to be round, just don't believe you example of a circle to
>be a circle.  
Still don't get the point, huh? There is no freedom for me to determine a 
square box to be a round in "I (Meeks) agree that a circle is round", my 
decision isn't involved in the binding the instances to the type.  Yet there 
is freedom for me to determine a particular incident to be "the type of 
things Ed Lor considers bogus", you said it explicitly.

Try "the type of things Ed Lor considers round are just circles", which
is not the same as "I agree that a circle is round". 

>Or, to help you out, I believe that the types of situations you
>are considering to be bogus, ie..  calls you consider incorrect within 
>Boston Garden, are nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere.  
Lie again. That's not your sentence on 7/2.

>I do
>not agree that every individual call you consider bogus to be bogus as well.
Geez, who gives a shit whether you agree or not. Where did you put your
decision of bogus or not in that characterization?

>>By whom? I didn't state anything like that. I stated the opposite.
>
>By me!!
But you weren't involved in the decision of bogus or not in that sentence,
only I was.

>Didn't need to.  Stated the other way still has not admission.  
Oh, so this is an admission of Ed Lor == Dave Meeks. Since Dave Meeks
determines what instances belong to the "type of things Ed Lor considers
bogus".

Just like the subject line. 

>Don't need to .  I agree with the characterization of the type.  I don't 
>agree with the specific case in question.  I agree that their have been calls
>made at home in various arenas that were bogus.  I agree that these are home
>jobs.  I don't agree that the Bird situation was one of them...
Too bad, your agreement or not was nowhere to be found in "the type of things
Ed Lor considers bogus".  Now the only way to wimp out is to equate Meeks to 
Lor.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com