From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:19:52 GMT
Keywords: HACKED!

Meeks' 23th lie: article #23 post-stop:

In article <1992Aug20.143224.67372@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>Lets revisit.. A "bad call" which was used as sarcasm 
Let's revisit. The sarcasm is used only to claim that the 7 vs 3 was 
non-conclusive. Where is the sarcasm on the 7 bad calls?

>and "call that the refs gives" was in reference to the TYPES OF THINGS.  
Lie again. "calls the refs gives" was in reference to the "2 3pt incidences".

  "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". 

You didn't refer the 2 3ptr as good calls, calls George Bush gives, calls 
Joe Gibbs gives. You referred them as "calls the refs gives the Celtics".

>Where is the "evidence"
Your two sentences. Where is the evidence of sarcasm on the 7 bad calls?
There is only evidence of sarcasm on inconclusiveness.

>>Yet Meeks' only capable defense so far is "he didn't consider the play
>>bogus".
>
>Nope.  Defense centers around:
>1) Didn't say the play was bogus
That's exactly what I said, which has nothing to do with the characterization.

>2) Only claimed the type of things were nothing more than home jobs ....
Nope, claimed that "the type of things as just home jobs..."
which means all instances of the types are also home jobs. That's not
what you meant? Too bad, then you screwed up in your type statement.

>3) Stated that I would not argue with you including the Bird 3ptr as an 
>   instance, which is different than my agreeing with it.
1) You don't agree that the Bird 3ptr belongs to the type CFTHTTWAFAM? 
Distortion.

2) Oh, so you would not argue that the Bird 3ptr is an instance of the type
CFTHTTWAFAM? 

Since I consider the type CFTHTTWAFAM bogus, by your characterization, 
type CFTHTTWAFAM is a home job.

So you would not argue that the Bird 3ptr is a home job, since if a type
is a home job, so are all its instances.

Glad that you would not argue. Is that a new bait?

>4) The fact that I have denied the Bird 3ptr being bogus/home job/anything else
>   about a hundred times
Then your 100 denials contradict your characterization in "the type 
of things you consider bogus as just home jobs ..." 100 denials wouldn't
save you if you have ONE admission.

>>1) the 3-ptr was not bogus  -- an irrelevant point
>
>But you equated bogus and home job to be the same things
So? it still has nothing to do with your characterization. Your characterization
only includes what I think as bogus. Whether it's really bogus (in public's
opinion) is irrelevant. You didn't characterize the type the public 
considers bogus in your sentence.

You say X is not bogus, but in another claim, say that X is an instance
of a type that's a home job. If you believe my equation, then it's your own
screw-up.  It's not my problem.

>>2) the 3-ptr was can't be an instance of a type (calls for the home team that
>>   we argue for a month) I consider bogus because 
>>
>>   a) he doesn't think it's bogus  -- try to support the notion that 
>>      Meeks == Lor.
>>   b) the 3-ptr doesn't belong to the type (calls for the home team that
>>      we argue for a month) -- distortion
>No one said that the 3ptr can't be an instance of the type YOU consider bogus.
>But you already admitted that the call was not bogus.  
Oh, I admitted that the call was not bogus now? I dare you show any evidence.
Is that your new way to argue? Fabricating my admission?

>Talk about inconsistency
Talk about lying. 

>So, now you are making another claim... Prove it.  Prove that the Celtics
>received more favoritism than "all other teams with one possible exception"
>during the whole Bird/Magic era.  Let's see the proof.  
By your own admission of star favoritism. Since over the whole era,
they get more stars/superstars/HOFers than the other teams. The proof?

<1992Jul30.132738.23878@uvmark.uucp>:
  As I remember, no one argued that players get preferential
  treatment, in fact, it was agreed upon.  .... No one has argued that 
  the stars don't get preferential treatment, nor that the rookies get.. 
  well.. rooked...

Well, you wimped out in the listing of stars/superstars last week, based on
your style of "I'll argue until I have the last say", that's an concession.
Maybe you can revive it and name the same Moses for both the Rockets/76ers 
in the same time span in the early 80s, or name Stockton/Malone for Utah 
as evidence for the entire Bird/Magic era, or name Mitch Richmond as proof 
for the Kings in the same 12 years .....
 
-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro