From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: thanks ed and dave
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:13:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.132114.20133@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>N = 2.  And, just a month ago, I didn't say I would stop, just that the
>thread should.  
Let's see. In Isiah/Stockton, your last message was
 <1991Nov25.185949.16330@uvmark.uucp>.  That's after your claim to end it 
in <1991Nov22.200435.9578@uvmark.uucp>
N=1.

In Bird/Malone, numerous claim to stop the argument, including messages on
5/8, 5/7, 5/6 ..... Yet had no attempt to stop. The "Let's stop/drop the
argument" was only an attempt to bait me to stop so that you can have the
last say. Since if I don't stop, you won't stop at all. Why would a sane
person with genuine intention to stop an argument requires permission
from the other party? Our arguments are intermingled with each other,
without your reply, I can't proceed.
N=2

In Rodman/Robinson, "this conversation is officially over starting now.
Any further e-mail attempts will be treated by contacting your
postmaster to enforce your stoppage" on 5/21, yet your last message
on the thread was on 5/23. And BTW, did you send a message to my
postmaster?
N=3

In this thread, you didn't say this thread should stop, you said in
<1992Jul22.204258.49724@uvmark.uucp>:
 
>Alright Ed, I think we have now reached our 1 month limit...  It is time this
>thread stopped, once again.  I am bored with having to re-read old posts
>and stuff.  Oh, don't worry, I am sure you will respond with comments about
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>me "wimping" out and all, and everything else, but I've gotten used to your
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>stupidity over the monthes.  Anyway...  I think Nate said it best...
>
>Who cares whether you think I said the Bird 3ptr was bogus or not??  It is
>obvious to all who care, with the exception of you, that it was not what 
>was said, nor was it what was meant or believed.  It is clear that my 
>feelings on the subject were that the call was fine.  You have had a good
>time trying to pick lines apart to try and "prove" that I said something, but
>I am reminding myself of the point of.."who cares"???   Ok, obviously, I
>did for quite a while, but I no longer do...  Think what you like, you will
>anyway.  If it puts a little happiness into your sorry life to believe that
>I "admitted" it, then you can think what you like.  Besides, it doesn't 
>alter the main fact that your overall argument of the Boston Bias issue
>was pretty weak.
>
>Anyway, the Olympics start soon, so I am sure we can get into other arguments,
>such as whether Stockton should be on the team, or Bird, or whether Bird
>should start over Malone, or whatever.  Also, since the teams are beginning
>to get things back into shape again (NBA), we could argue the merits of
>whether Jon Barry was a good choice, or whether David Robinson will win
>DPOTY again, or whatever... 
>
>Let's just get back to basketball...
If that's not your claim to stop, why did you think that I would call
that a "wimp out"? I never consider your suggestion to stop a "wimp out", 
because your suggestion was nothing but a stupid stunt to lure me not to 
reply.  N=4. 

I only had four major flame wars with you. And you have been claiming to 
stop, at least once, in each war. Why would this time be an exception?

>This time I said I am stopping, and I did. 
Because you are going nowhere. You still can't refute the Bird 3ptr being
an instance of the type CFTHTTWAFAM, which is a home job. Your only
defense is not to refute it, but calling it stupid, which confirms
your admission, which should be tagged as stupid indeed.

Now, go ahead, I dare you not reply.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com