From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:38:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.173329.2949@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>When a person is a warped and pig-headed as yourself, no amount of sane logic
>on the other side will prevail.  And, as myself and many others have seen,
>after awhile you get tired of dealing with your being an idiot.  
Yes, it seems like you aren't tired of being called "ignorance", "biased",
"liar", "asshole" .... at all.


>So we have
>been foolish in trying to show you the error of your ways, or pointing out
>the flaws in your logic, but we haven't been as idiotic as you have been.
Yes, like using more faulty logic, lies, contradictions and minority opinions?

>If it were only I argueing with you Ed, it would be one thing.  But, the list
>is too large for me to go on with.... Nate, Bis, Gary, Gary, myself, and 
>countless others that you have mentioned yourself have all been accused of 
>being idiots for argueing with you.  
That must be a good way to save face in losing an argument, just call the
other "idiot". 

>The common thread in this is that it 
>always seems like someone or another is in a war with you.   
Well, it seems like that "someone" is only you. I haven't seen anyone
as pissed off as you are for wimping out in flame wars ...

>Funny that I
>never see the same happen with the others.  Oh sure, occasional flames occur,
>but never the prolonged wars you seem to enjoy.  I think you have the 
>market on those...
Without you, the market doesn't exist. Don't be humble.

>Wrong.   The only reason I have stopped in the past is that there are so many
>times I can say the same thing.  
Right, saying the lies/minority opinions/contradictions N times do not make
them truth/majority opinions/tautologies. Why can't you see that earlier?

>I agree that you bore me after awhile, but
>things are slow now, so I can deal with it.  But, as usual, you will 
>eventually bore me and the argument will end.  However, you are really the
>only one who lives by the motto of "he who flames last, wins the argument".
Oh, YOU MEAN YOU AREN'T? Then what drives you saying the same thing
(head-to-head) again and again?

>The world loves to watch the idiot perform...
An idiot like Dave Meeks?

>Funny, I can't remember John Madden ever stating that the team with the
>best record is the best football team...  
No, but John Madden says that the "49ers and the Cowboys" are the two best
teams last Sunday.  

>Nor have I seen him state that head-to-head matchups are irrelevant.  
No matter what's his opinion on records and head-to-head are in general,
he specifically told us his opinion on the 49ers.

>In fact, he has many times stated the
>opposite.  And, the SF Chronicle is hardly an unbiased source.  I am sure 
>there are some Buffalo papers that would disagree with you.
Yes, then go ahead. You get any NY/USA Today journalists agreeing with you?

>>SB either. Guess head-to-head didn't count either.
>So, what are you saying, that we throw both of them out???
Right, and since you are only interested in finding an exception to
invalidate a scheme. Maybe you advocate ranking teams randomly.

>Yes, in the case of ties it definitely does.  
So in the case of no ties, it definitely doesn't.

>Miami and Buffalo (and others
>for that matter) ended the season at 11-5.  It then used other criteria to
>determine those things you mention.  It does use them to determine Conference 
>Champs and SuperBowl winners (best teams) as well.  So, you can have those 
>minor things, in which head-to-head does play a significant part, but the 
>ultimate victories are based solely on head-to-head matchups...
Yep, so when was Buffalo's ultimate January victory over SF? You mean
they played their ultimate game back in week 2? 

>But what's those odds look like now???  Looks like that betting public 
>doesn't think much of SF anymore.  
The odds reflected the public's opinion on field, in which SF was consider
better than Buffalo. The odds NOW doesn't mean anything, since it doesn't
reflect the ordering on SF vs Buffalo.

>But, we are not trying to say that records don't count, just that  they aren't
>always valid.  
Then good. Which one is MORE valid? record or head-to-head? 

And the records of 2-3 games ahead have been valid in the past decade or so
with the possible exceptions of the PCAA teams.

>And, I think we have seen enough examples of them not working
>to show them to not always be valid.
Oh, is that it? you just try to trash a scheme because it's not ALWAYS valid?
And show me the examples of 2-3 games difference.

>But Ed, 12-1 against 11-1 were the final results.  Using up-to-date 
>results, we have Buffalo at 14-5, SF at 15-3.  This is not a situation where
>we are talking 2-3 games behind... Right now, we are talking about 1.5
>games behind.   
That's 2 losses behind. After losing the SB, the Bills will be 3 losses and 2
games behind. That's the situation we are talking about.  

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com