From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:35:25 GMT
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!

Meeks' 15th lie: article #15 post-stop

>In article <1992Aug12.220438.22852@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>>>But no one said I agree with the specific calls, just the types.  
>>You don't have to. That call belongs to the type. What do you think "you
>>(Ed Lor) consider bogus" means?
>
>Doesn't matter.  No one agreed on the types.  
No one needs your agreement on the types.

>Next you are going to try and
>say I agree that Larry Bird is bogus, right.. After all, Larry Bird was part
>of the instance of the type of the things mentioned, right... 
Is there a statement about "the types of the things mentioned == bogus"? 
Making strawman argument again.

>Though I don't agree with your semantic bullshit, we go with it since you 
>seem to have given up on the original discussions.
Because you screw up in your semantic bullshit. Didn't Nate tell you
this is all all these flame war is about? nit-picking?

>The ellipsis is used to note that there was a continuation of the comment
>that was omitted.
But that was the first time you made a comment like this, so your omission
is no evidence of "happen everywhere". 

>Nope... Reread the ellipsis comments.  "home jobs ..." refers to the
>original comment of "... home jobs that happen everywhere."  
Lie again. Your original comment on 6/29 was 

  "nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere."

Your 7/2 comment was

  "just home jobs ...."

Where is "just" defined as "nothing more than"?

>Nobody asks, but you are trying very hard to "prove" that I agreed with you.
But nobody ask for your agreement whether an event belongs my bogus list.
You have no say in this decision.

>I did characterize a type.  Many events may/may not belong to the type.
>No one claimed anything about the events, just the types..
Dumbo, if I consider this instance as a "thing I consider bogus", then this
thing MUST BELONG to at least one "type of things I consider bogus".
For example, I consider BG home calls (type T1) bogus.  I also consider after 
buzzer call that favor the Celtics (type T2) bogus. I also consider phantom 
3-ptr (type T3) bogus.

There are many types of things (T1, T2, T3 .... Tn) I consider bogus. Since I 
also consider instance X bogus, there must exist at least one of these types
that X belongs to.

What if you say X doesn't belong to any one of these types? That's impossible.
Because at least there is a type (Tj) that I consider bogus, say, "BG calls 
that benefit the Celtics that we argue for a month" that event X must be an 
instance of. And you have no say of whether you agree or not, because:

1) I consider type Tj bogus
2) Bird's 3-ptr is an instance of type Tj.

>That's fine.  But remember, I never agreed with the instances, just the type...
But this instance belong to at least one of the type.

>Excuse me???  You determine all you like, but don't try and make a point that
>I agree with your determination of the instance.  You can come up with as
>many instances of the type as you feel like.  I may/may not agree with them.
But the type binding is not contingent upon your agreement.
I can come up with as many instances as I feel like. If I feel it's bogus, 
I can certainly find a type that it belongs to.

>Very true.  But there is no freedom for you to bind the instance to an
>agreement by me, as you seem intent on doing.  I gave you the freedom to
>determine the type.  
OK, that's enough. Check out these types:

1) calls that we argue for a month.
2) calls that generate flame war 5 months after the fact
3) calls that Parish claimed as "a 2 and a prayer"
4) calls that Bis claimed as "wrong".

The 3-ptr belongs to all these types, any dispute?

All these are types I consider bogus. Any mention in that sentence that 
Ed Lor cannot consider these types bogus?

>You have the freedom to determine the events that make up your type.  
I just did.

>There is no implicit direct relation between your 
>events and my statement concerning the relation of the types.  
I just showed you. According to your characterization, types 1, 2, 3 & 4,
or each collection of events that belong each types, are just home jobs. 

The 3-ptr is among the collection of events, isn't it?

>Your events may make up the general type, but they don't do this with my 
>agreement of the events.
Oh, so you don't agree that the 3-ptr belongs to any one of the above four 
types? Tell me which one.

>>Boston Garden, are nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere.  
>>Lie again. That's not your sentence on 7/2.
>Yeah, it is a lie again.  It is your lie, and it has been shown...
My lie? on 7/2, you said:

  "No, the types of things you consider bogus are just home jobs ...."

Where is the "nothing more than"? where is the "that happen everywhere"?
Who's lying?

>>>By me!!
>>But you weren't involved in the decision of bogus or not in that sentence,
>>only I was.
>And why is that?  
Because you didn't mention yourself in the binding of instances into 
type.  And now you want to wimp out.

>Nope.  Dave Meeks does not determine what instances belong to that type.
>Ed Lor does.  However, since Ed Lor != Dave Meeks, Ed Lor does not determine
>whether Dave Meeks agrees that Ed Lor's instances are correct or not.
Oh, so the original sentence must be

  "the types of things you consider bogus, CONTINGENT UPON MY AGREEMENT, are
   just home jobs ..."

Nope, didn't see the "contingent upon my agreement" part. So you are right,
"Ed Lor does not determine whether Meeks agrees that Ed Lor's instance are
correct or not", but that has nothing to do with your characterization.

>So, now you admit that I didn't agree with you in this statement. 
Well so what if we don't agree on what's bogus and what's not? What does it
have to do with your characterization? Your characterization is only contingent
upon what I consider bogus, not you.

>And, you are the only one trying to wimp out with the Meeks == Lor statement, 
>not me.  
Yep, because you are trying to say that since Meeks doesn't consider event 
X bogus, Lor can't consider event X bogus. 

What else does it mean?

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