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: 14 Aug 92 14:52:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug13.183525.14981@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>Meeks' 15th lie: article #15 post-stop
>
>>In article <1992Aug12.220438.22852@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>
>>Next you are going to try and
>>say I agree that Larry Bird is bogus, right.. After all, Larry Bird was part
>>of the instance of the type of the things mentioned, right... 
>Is there a statement about "the types of the things mentioned == bogus"? 
>Making strawman argument again.

No, you tried to state that I had said that "these bogus calls are merely
home jobs that happen anywhere."  In defense of that statement I replied
"Just that the types of things you consider bogus are nothing more than
home jobs that happen everywhere.".  If I had actually said what you tried
to say I did, then what you have been argueing about the last week about this
point could be considered true.  Your comment of "these bogus calls are merely
home jobs that happen anywhere." is saying events == homejobs... <-ellipsis!!!
I denied your statement and stated what I "stated", that being the
now infamous "types of things you consider bogus are nothing more than home
jobs that happen everywhere.".  This is saying "types of events" == homejobs.
Note the difference.  You tried to get me to agree that it was the events.
I refused, stated flat out that "Never said that these were bogus calls." and
then said that it was the "types of things" that were home jobs...<-ellipsis!!!
This was in <1992Jun29.202559.31131@uvmark.uucp>, which was in reference to 
your <1992Jun29.163019.16924@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, which was in reference
to a post by Nate, <1992Jun29.151808.19464@ll.mit.edu>.  In this early 
reference to the whole "home job" situation, the first I had made making
any "equation", I stated my position."Types of things"=="home jobs ..."<-ellip!
You made the statement of "bogus calls == home jobs that happen anywhere".
I pointed out the problem with that equation by denoting that the "bogus calls"
part was incorrect.  Pretty damn clear to me...
>
>>Though I don't agree with your semantic bullshit, we go with it since you 
>>seem to have given up on the original discussions.
>Because you screw up in your semantic bullshit. Didn't Nate tell you
>this is all all these flame war is about? nit-picking?

Well, since we are nit-picking, at least let's stop with your lies...

>
>>The ellipsis is used to note that there was a continuation of the comment
>>that was omitted.
>But that was the first time you made a comment like this, so your omission
>is no evidence of "happen everywhere". 

The first time I made a comment like this was in 
<1992Jun29.202559.31131@uvmark.uucp>, I used the ellipsis in 
<1992Jul02.153505.57473@uvmark.uucp>, after a number of other comments 
using the whole text.  I often use ellipsis to denote continuation.

>>Nobody asks, but you are trying very hard to "prove" that I agreed with you.
>But nobody ask for your agreement whether an event belongs my bogus list.
>You have no say in this decision.

But again, you have spent a great deal of time attempting to prove that
I "admitted" the Bird 3ptr was bogus.  And, you have attempted to do so
in part by trying to prove that, since I said "types of things == home
jobs that happen everywhere" , and you have been trying to say that 
"types of things" == "things", which is obviously not true...

>
>>I did characterize a type.  Many events may/may not belong to the type.
>>No one claimed anything about the events, just the types..
>Dumbo, if I consider this instance as a "thing I consider bogus", then this
>thing MUST BELONG to at least one "type of things I consider bogus".
>For example, I consider BG home calls (type T1) bogus.  I also consider after 
>buzzer call that favor the Celtics (type T2) bogus. I also consider phantom 
>3-ptr (type T3) bogus.
>
>There are many types of things (T1, T2, T3 .... Tn) I consider bogus. Since I 
>also consider instance X bogus, there must exist at least one of these types
>that X belongs to.
>
>What if you say X doesn't belong to any one of these types? That's impossible.
>Because at least there is a type (Tj) that I consider bogus, say, "BG calls 
>that benefit the Celtics that we argue for a month" that event X must be an 
>instance of. And you have no say of whether you agree or not, because:
>
>1) I consider type Tj bogus
>2) Bird's 3-ptr is an instance of type Tj.

Doesn't matter still.  No one is argueing your inclusion of the type Tj.
No one argues you including the instance.  The arguement is your idiotic
attempt to attribute your inclusion of the instance with my agreement with
it's being bogus/non-bogus.
>
>>Very true.  But there is no freedom for you to bind the instance to an
>>agreement by me, as you seem intent on doing.  I gave you the freedom to
>>determine the type.  
>OK, that's enough. Check out these types:
>
>1) calls that we argue for a month.
>2) calls that generate flame war 5 months after the fact
>3) calls that Parish claimed as "a 2 and a prayer"
>4) calls that Bis claimed as "wrong".
>
>The 3-ptr belongs to all these types, any dispute?
>
>All these are types I consider bogus. Any mention in that sentence that 
>Ed Lor cannot consider these types bogus?
>
>>You have the freedom to determine the events that make up your type.  
>I just did.
>
>>There is no implicit direct relation between your 
>>events and my statement concerning the relation of the types.  
>I just showed you. According to your characterization, types 1, 2, 3 & 4,
>or each collection of events that belong each types, are just home jobs. 

See, here is your inherent flaw.  The types 1, 2, 3, &4 are included in
the equation of "types of things == home jobs that happen everywhere".  You
keep trying to change things from types, to element of the type.

As an example, I like the classification of music known as progressive rock.
As a general statement, I enjoy the groups and music included.  I do not 
like many of the individual groups involved in the set.
"types of things" = progressive rock
"things" = each individual instance/group.
See the difference now.  
In our example
"types of things" = Type 1, 2, 3, 4
"things" = each individual instance/call

>
>>>Boston Garden, are nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere.  
>>>Lie again. That's not your sentence on 7/2.
>>Yeah, it is a lie again.  It is your lie, and it has been shown...
>My lie? on 7/2, you said:
>
>  "No, the types of things you consider bogus are just home jobs ...."
>
>Where is the "nothing more than"? where is the "that happen everywhere"?
>Who's lying?

the ellipsis imply the continuation of a quote, the original quote being
"home jobs that happen everywhere".

>>Nope.  Dave Meeks does not determine what instances belong to that type.
>>Ed Lor does.  However, since Ed Lor != Dave Meeks, Ed Lor does not determine
>>whether Dave Meeks agrees that Ed Lor's instances are correct or not.
>Oh, so the original sentence must be
>
>  "the types of things you consider bogus, CONTINGENT UPON MY AGREEMENT, are
>   just home jobs ..."
>
>Nope, didn't see the "contingent upon my agreement" part. So you are right,
>"Ed Lor does not determine whether Meeks agrees that Ed Lor's instance are
>correct or not", but that has nothing to do with your characterization.

Nope.  It is still the original statement.  However, I didn't see 
"the types of things you consider bogus are nothing more than home jobs that
happen everywhere, INCLUDING THINGING EACH INDIVIDUAL EVENT THAT MAKES UP THE
TYPE AS BOGUS".  I only included the "types of things", and in a semantic,
nit-picky discussion, it protects me for you assinine attempts...
>
>>And, you are the only one trying to wimp out with the Meeks == Lor statement, 
>>not me.  
>Yep, because you are trying to say that since Meeks doesn't consider event 
>X bogus, Lor can't consider event X bogus. 

Nope.  Never said that since Meeks doesn't consider it bogus you can't.
But I stated the other way, just because Lor considers event X bogus does
not mean that Meeks considers it bogus as well.
-- 
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"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro