From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Cut & Paste
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:21:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.051138.10877@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.141527.52124@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>No, 3 or 4 people have noted your cut/paste activity.  If you want to 
>>redefine what cut/paste is, feel free, but it doesn't change the fact that 
>>you have been doing it.
>Well, 3 or 4 people have also missed my initial accusations on your admission.
>And who are they, Nate and Jim, both Celtic fans on your side, so what does
>it prove? nothing more than your buddies defending the Celtics.

But Ed, why does it matter they are Celtics fans??? We are not talking about
a Celtics issue here, but rather a seperate point.  They have no "team 
challenge" reasons to back me up, only that they believe my side of things.
>
>>Not an admission of the 7, rather a disagreement that the 7, EVEN IF THEY
>>WERE TRUE, is not very conclusive.
>Well, you didn't say "EVEN IF THEY WERE TRUE". Where's the EVEN IF? Oh, you
>mean you can add words in the statements retroactively? 

Hey, you can take them out, why can't I put them in...

>>Why would I sound like the accused
>>when I hadn't been accused of anything on that comment at that point?  
>From <1992Jun29.163717.17271@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>:
>  "At least we could get Bis and Meek saying that these bogus calls
>  are merely home jobs that happen anywhere. That's an admission of the
>  happening. Their only hope is that since it happens to everybody else, then
>  it's not guilt ...."
>
>Then came your denials of bogus calls in <1992Jun29.202559.31131@uvmark.uucp>,
>in which you repeated my same statement, and supplied me the evidence, between 
>two denials. 

Yeah, I deny the comment you make, TWICE.  And inbetween, I state that things
"you consider", not "I consider", not "these bogus calls".  Not the change of
your comment.  You state "these bogus calls", which refers to the Bird 3ptr
as being bogus, and possibly others.  I state, "never said that these were
bogus calls", which directly contradicts your point of "these bogus calls".
Then, it is continued with "The type of things you consider bogus", which
implies that the "these bogus calls", are "things you consider bogus".  I then
finish with "No admission that the calls specified were bogus."  

>
>See, I wasn't trying to frame you. I knew what you said in March but I didn't
>keep the article, so I got no reference. Yet after my accusation, YOU SAID THE
>SAME THING I ACCUSED YOU OF SAYING. See, I recognized your belief, you 
>couldn't get away with it despite all these denials.

Nope, close but not quite the same thing.

>If that was a lie, why didn't you make sure that it was a lie by NOT saying
>X? was X really your belief? or were you really that stupid?

But you said X, I stated X', which was not quite X.  

>>But it's not an admission of anything...  
>It's an admission that my examples of bogus calls are nothing more than
>home jobs.

But no admission that the calls specifically in question are bogus.

According to you, "bogus" == "all bad calls", where "home jobs" are just a
subset of "bogus".  How can I state time after time that the calls were not
"bogus", thus, "not bad", and yet you read into a statement that they are 
somehow allowed into the "home jobs" category, which is supposedly a subset
of the "bogus" category, which has already been declared as not true.  The
only thing I see is that you read the middle statement in such a way as to
give the sentence a contradictory meaning, which was not what was stated.
If you wish to twist things around to make no sense, feel free, just don't
expect anyone to believe or support you...But I guess you are used to that
feeling..

>>But you have never shown admission.  Not one comment that stated that my 
>>opinion was definitely in your favor.  
>"Just that what you considered bogus was nothing more than home jobs
>that happen everywhere". Admission of "home job".

But not admission that the Bird 3ptr was a home job.  I admit freely that
home jobs occur.  So, yes, it was an admission of "home job", but not an
admission that the Bird 3ptr was bogus, nor that it was a home job.

>"So in your context, since over the last few years, you can name as many
>as 2 3pt incidences, that is proof enough for you that the league is in
>the Celtics pocket and the refs give the Celtics all the calls". Admission
>of the 2 3-ptrs as calls the refs gave.

How is this proof?   I state that "you can name as many as 2 3pt incidents"
This is not admission of anything but the fact that you can name 2 3pt
incidents.  An incident != bogus call.  
>
-- 
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