From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Hmmm... (Changing the rules)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:45:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.191455.40397@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>No, before it was you and Gary, 
I don't consider it a flame war against Gary. It was an argument.

>and earlier you and John Gloria, 
Gloria was in a flame war with me? for 2 days? Have we ever had a flame
war that lasted only 2 days? 

>and now, you and I.   
Yep, after 10 days and a trillion bytes, that sounds more like it.

>One person involved in all three... YOU!!!  
Oh, so you must constantly be in flame wars too, when people criticizing the 
Dolphins.

>And, in so many other arguments, it seems to be you against many others...
Yes, like all the people you infuriated in rec.sport.football.college?

>Actually, we have decided it is the "all people against Ed Lor"...  I didn't
>realize John Gloria was a Buffalo fan... 
Yes, I don't realize that you were a Buffalo fan either. You should have
told Bruce Yeager.

>Good to see you finally admit you're wrong.  
Of course I was dead wrong: you have no common sense, while I assumed otherwise.

>Your statement was that "Buffalo is better than S.F.".  
Yep, that statement was made on 10/7, which has no bearing with the current
comparison. 

>Remember our argument awhile back that you claimed what was said before 
>or after doesn't matter??  
Really? So SF must be better than Buffalo, no doubt about it, because
back in 1981/84/88/89, that statement was true. So saying "San Francisco 
IS better than Buffalo" 4 years after the fact shouldn't matter ...

>You stated that "Based on records, they aren't.  Based on head to 
>head, they aren't.  Buffalo is better than S.F.".    
Yep, answering to my own question: 

   "So the contingency is, are the 49ers the 2nd best team in the 
    league right now?"

On 10/7/92, Buffalo is 4-1, SF is 4-1, Miami is 4-0, Philly is 4-0.
1) Based on records, the 49ers aren't the 2nd best team in the league.
There are two teams with superior records.

2) For identical record, based on head-to-head, Buffalo won at Candlestick, 
so the 49ers aren't better than Buffalo at that time.

There is an idiot who didn't even know the context of the "Based
on record ...." statement, and tried to use it as "proof". 

>Hmmm.  Hey Ed, if they have the same records, then
>what does the comment "Based on records, they aren't" mean???   
It means "Based on records, the 49ers aren't the 2nd best team in the 
league". What else does it mean?

>IT SEEMS THAT
>YOU ARE IMPLYING THEY HAD DIFFERENT RECORDS AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME...
BINGO!!!! 

You are trying to argue against WHAT I IMPLY? Which statements told you
that SF's 4-1 and Buffalo's 4-1 were DIFFERENT records? 

Another admission, this time for making up false evidence. 

>and others...  Of course, you also have the feeling shared by myself and 
>probably by Gary as well.  Haven't seen too many in support of your 
>claims..
On this issue, I don't think I need any. This is not a matter of
opinions, e.g. Buffalo vs SF. This is a rebuttal of a phoney accusation,
which proves to be baseless except "it seems you are IMPLYING ...."

>And, you probably don't see any opinion on the "bogus" accusation because it
>wasn't bogus.  
If it wasn't bogus, I don't know what is. You are arguing against something 
you fabricated: I am implying that 4-1 Buffalo and 4-1 SF have DIFFERENT 
records, thus incorrectly use the tie-breaker. 

And getting you to admit that your proof is nothing but a fabricated 
implication, it's time well spent...

>Where have I been "wimping" out??  
Because I didn't see any replies on our "Hmmm...." since last Friday.

>You asked to prove that
>you were making up the rules, and I have shown how you let the rules change
>to fit your own particular needs.  
Yes, based on something you made up. All you have shown is that 
your fabricated implication, not my words, did indeed change the rules.

>You like this idea of "wimping" out, seems
>like whenever you start getting scared, you use this as your argument...
Yes, I am really scared. I don't know what new implication you are going
to argue against the next time. 

>And what opinion is that??? That Buffalo was better than SF???  I have seen
>plenty of opinions on my side, and I have seen many on the side of SF as well.
Then the burden of proof of "plenty of opinions on my side" is on you. You
care to list the names?

>As far as comparisions between the two, opinions vary, but we had more than 
>1 person agreeing that we have at least 1 undeniable factor... That Buffalo
>beat SF in SF this year.  
We also had the entire league agreeing that SF's had a better record than
Buffalo. We also had the media and Vegas agreeing that SF was better than
Buffalo.

>And, we also have the opinion of Ed Lor that
>Buffalo was better than SF.  What more do we need???
I don't know. Maybe you need some new implications to argue against.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro