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: 23 Aug 92 01:50:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: uvmark.1992Aug23.015024.66223
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug21.224403.24228@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>Meeks 25th lie: article #25 post-stop.
>
>In article <1992Aug21.140947.5752@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>
>>No, it was only in a different context because one word was different and Ed
>>thinks he can make it into something different, even though it was in direct 
>>response to the original comment.
>But that one word has different meaning. How can a characterization of
>a different meaning be a direct response to the original comment?

Because the comment was made in direct response to the original comment, 
and the fact that one word was different does not change the meaning in 
such a significant way as to give credence to your attempts to make something
out of it.  And, you still haven't addressed how this makes a difference.
>
>>I didn't realize we lived in a binary world, Ed.  Last I looked, very few 
>>things in life we "binary".  We have not been argueing over the past month
>>over whether "just" means the same as "nothing more than". 
>We are. This question of reference only has a yes/no answer. If yes
>(identical), then it's a reference. If no (not identical, almost identical),
>then it's not a reference. What's in between?

However, as it was a direct response to the issue, it is a given that it is
in reference to the original comment.  If the question is "was the comment
in reference to the orignal comment", I doubt a person in the world would
agree with you.  If the question was "is the comment the EXACT same as
his original comment", then the answer is no.  I used a different word in
one location that had a slightly different meaning.  The idea behind the
comment was the same, and Ed has admitted that he can't argue with the
original comment.  HOwever, now he attempts to save face by saying that,
even though he f**ked up and was argueing over a point he admitted he was
wrong with, he is hoping to argue long enough that Dave makes a mistake.
Well, Dave used the wrong word in one spot which slightly changed the meaning
in Ed's mind.  Since it is all he has left to save face, he spends a month
trying to make a point out of it.  Granted, he has done nothing but try to
argue that since the word is different, and therefore the meaning is different
(though any sane person realizes that the meaning is so insignificant to not
matter), but he still won't address how the difference is such that he can use
it for an argument that he already admit he lost.
>
>>Too bad???  Again, if you want to read something into a statement that was not
>>stated, too bad for you.  
>Oh, if you want to wimp out your statement with another meaning, too bad
>for you.

Not too bad for me, too bad for you.  The statement was made, and the meaning
was stated at the very beginning.  If you want to wimp out by trying to say
that the sarcasm was only for a subpart of the statement and not the whole 
statement, tough ...
>
>>We have had that argument for awhile.  Their is no
>>net.law stating that EdLo can read a statement any way he wants and try to make
>>a point that is accepted by anyone.  
>There is no net.law stating that Meek can interpret two statements of 
>non-identical meanings as one statement either.

Unless EdLo can express where the major difference is between the two 
statements, he doesn't need to.
>
>>Oh, sure, EdLo can read the statement anyway he wants, but we just don't 
>>want to hear it.  
>OH, sure, Meek can (mis)interpret it anyway he wants, but we just don't
>want to hear it.

Ed, explain something to us.  How the fuck can Meeks, who wrote the comment,
"misinterpret" the comment???  I wrote the comment and now the meaning made
with it.  At least two others have stated that the read the same thing into 
it.  So far, you are the only one who has made any reference to it being
hard to understand.  As the author of the comment, I cannot "misinterpret"
the comment.  As the reader, you could.  And, as other readers have stated that
they read it the way it was written, it is obvious who screwed up... EdLo...
>
>>And "my" interpretation is a wimp out??? I wrote the damn thing, I don't 
>>need an "interpretation" of the statement.  
>But you didn't know what you were writing about, not until I picked on 
>it that you want to wimp out by interpreting "as just" to be "nothing
>more than".

Ed, you are a major idiot... Talk about a wimp out.. You are now trying
to base an argument based on your idea that I didn't know what I was saying???
But you did???  Still trying to prove that Meeks==Lor thing, aren't you...
Pretty sad.  
>
>>I know what was meant by it.  It is left to you to "interpret"
>>it. If you read a different interpretation, tough!!!  
>Oh, then you can't argue my interpretation.

Sure I can.  I can tell you your interpretation was wrong.  If you read 
something incorrectly, all I can do is point it out.  

>Lie again. Where did I allow you off the hook that there is no admission
>of home jobs?

Where was it said that there was no admission of home jobs??  I have admitted
that home jobs happen since the very beginning.  That fact was not in
question, or are you still trying to prove that I believe there are home jobs??
Silly Ed, so confused.  Now, the point of the Bird 3ptr was not considered
a home job by me. 
>
>>Not "can't", just "not".  There are lots of things you say that I COULD argue
>>with you over, but don't.  It isn't worth argueing with you over whether
>>YOU think the Bird 3ptr was bogus.  That is an opinion you form on your own.
>>If you state it as an opinion, as something you believe, then there is no 
>>need to argue it.  If you state it as an example, no need to argue.  However,
>>if you try to establish it as FACT, I (as well as others) have a problem with
>>it.  
>I am sure you don't have a problem. Because so far, you are still dodging the 
>fact that the 3ptr belongs to the type CFTHTTWAFAM. I see your dodging
>as an implicit agreement.

The 3ptr belongs to your set of instances.  No one is dodging that fact.
The disagreement only belongs to your attempts to claim that because it belongs
to YOUR type, I agree that it was a bogus home job.  If you remember, way back
when, I explained my idea of a home job, which you didn't like (tough).  I
don't believe that a home job is necessarily bogus.  You, on the other hand,
classify all home jobs as bogus.  Yet, you claim that you agree that I never
said and in fact, denied that the Bird instance was bogus.  Since this
was an admission by you, it is not an "interpretation".  However, we are dealing
now with your "interpretation" that the Bird 3ptr should be included as 
a home job, thus bogus, which you already established as not true.  So,
your interpretation of it caused an inconsistency, not the statement.  
The statement explicitly excluded the Bird as a bogus 3pt instance.  If
your interpretation of the other statement leads you to believe that it
can then be consider a home job by me, thus bogus, that is your problem.
You caused your own inconsistencies by your incorrect interpretation..
But, you have a habit of doing that...
	>
	>>  - Ed not able to supply any real proof
>No need to. You admit star/superstar favoritism. 

Now need to??  So, you can make a claim and then just back away from it?
>
>>  - Ed gets support of 4 others and declares victory
>>  - Ed changes subject when 9 support Meeks and that line is lost
>Tough luck to me. I didn't know that there are that many Celtic brothers
>in the closet.

Yep, good to see you admit you lost though...

>
>>2) Meeks "admitted" 3 things 
>>  - bad call ... Ed twists the interpretation and ignores the obvious sarcasm
>Lie. Use sarcasm of conclusive/inconclusive to lie about sarcasm of the
>call being bad.

No, the only lie is your claim of trying to isolate a subpart of the comment
as the object of the sarcasm, as opposed to the whole comment...
>
>>  - refs give the Celtics the calls... Ed twists the interpretation and takes
>> 	         a statement that was questioning HIS interpretation and he 
>>		 tries to claim it is an admission...
>Yep, like you reference of the two 3ptrs as "calls the refs gives". If
>that's not true, there isn't even reason to question whether that is 
>"proof enough" for me. You should have question "whether proof exists".

I don't now why we have come back to this.  It has been pointed out by myself
and others that this is a simple example of attacking your stupid logic from
both ends.  We debated whether the 3 ptrs were even bogus, and the comment
then attacked your idea that this was proof.  Again, if you can't handle
the simple interpretation that others also understood, tough...

>>I will continue.. no problem.  However, you have spent the last month trying
>>to make a stupid case out of nothing, and I have spent the last month
>>debating and disputing your stupid claims.  
>Well, stupid case out of nothing? You screw up in your generalization.
>And so far you still aren't able to counter the type CFTHTTWAFAM, because
>I know that type is a killer to you. The only way is to dodge it.

No, the screw up was in your INTERPRETATION of the statement.  
As far as your assinine "CFTHTTWAFAM", who gives a shit.  If you want to
get into an argument and try to now drag it on for another month based on
this stupid line, tough.  This one I won't bother.  Why, because it is to
stupid to even bother with.
>
>>You are never going to get any admission that I think nor said the Bird 
>>3ptr was bogus, nor that it was a home job, or anything else.  
>Oh, by totally dodging the killing point, now you are declaring yourself 
>winner? Geez, being the judge and participant again?

So, now, after admitting your error with the other points, you now are trying
to claim a "killing point" with this stupid "CFTHTTWAFAM" line.  
>
-- 
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"