From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Meeks == Lor
Keywords: I'd have to think hard to come up with a more offensive insult!
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:09:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: uvmark.1992Aug21.140947.5752
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.171019.17653@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>Meeks' 21th lie: article #21 post-stop
>
>In article <1992Aug19.140103.37230@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>
>>Nope, but I did have a previous statement of "home jobs..."
>But the previous statement of "home job" was in a different characterization,
>i.e. different context. Since it's a different context, "home jobs ...."
>couldn't have meant the home job in that different context.

No, it was only in a different context because one word was different and Ed
thinks he can make it into something different, even though it was in direct 
response to the original comment.
>
>>How is it "totally different"??? One word changed, a word which can mean the
>>same thing, or nearly the same thing.  This does not imply "totally different".
>Because you said it yourself, they are nearly identical, which doesn't mean
>identical. In a binary world, non-identical means totally different. 
>Are we talking about binary here? We are talking about whether "just"
>DOES OR DOES NOT mean the same as "nothing more than", no gray area in between.

I didn't realize we lived in a binary world, Ed.  Last I looked, very few 
things in life we "binary".  We have not been argueing over the past month
over whether "just" means the same as "nothing more than". 
>
>>>"Exact or precise" != "equal or less" So your 2nd characterization was 
>>>not equal to your 1st one.
>>"Equal or barely" == "equal or less". You want to read something else into
>>it, fine... But, too bad...
>Oh, then my accusation is valid. You can only wimp out by your own 
>interpretation of "just", namely "exact or precise" == "equal or less",
>too bad ....

Too bad???  Again, if you want to read something into a statement that was not
stated, too bad for you.  We have had that argument for awhile.  Their is no
net.law stating that EdLo can read a statement any way he wants and try to make
a point that is accepted by anyone.  Oh, sure, EdLo can read the statement 
anyway he wants, but we just don't want to hear it.  And "my" interpretation
is a wimp out??? I wrote the damn thing, I don't need an "interpretation" of 
the statement.  I know what was meant by it.  It is left to you to "interpret"
it. If you read a different interpretation, tough!!!  
>
>You can't argue my interpretation, i.e. accusation. You can only wimp out 
>with another interpretation.

Strange...  Sounds to me like you are trying to "wimp out" of the original
discussion by trying to misinterpret the statement and make something out
of it that makes it different than the original, which you admitted was no
admission.
>
>>>You got no choice. Type Tj is "calls for the home team that 
>>>we argue for a month". Don't like it? I'll use another type Tk which
>>>is "calls for the home team that Bis admitted as wrong". Go ahead,
>>>argue the facts.
>>
>>Not argueing and agreeing are very different concepts dumb fuck...  Saying
>>that I am not argueing, or no one argues, is not saying "Oh, I agree with
>>that".  Argue that fact...
>Oh, so you can't argue about the fact that the play is  an instance of
>the type.  In other words, the play is an instance of a type that is 
>a home job. You said it yourself. Then what are you arguing about here?

Not "can't", just "not".  There are lots of things you say that I COULD argue
with you over, but don't.  It isn't worth argueing with you over whether
YOU think the Bird 3ptr was bogus.  That is an opinion you form on your own.
If you state it as an opinion, as something you believe, then there is no 
need to argue it.  If you state it as an example, no need to argue.  However,
if you try to establish it as FACT, I (as well as others) have a problem with
it.  What are we argueing about here???  Hard to say anymore, you have twisted
the argument around so many times, it is hard to say... Let's see...

1) The Celtics get more favoratism than the other teams
  - Ed not able to supply any real proof
  - Ed gets support of 4 others and declares victory
  - Ed changes subject when 9 support Meeks and that line is lost
2) Meeks "admitted" 3 things 
  - bad call ... Ed twists the interpretation and ignores the obvious sarcasm
  - home job ... Ed twists the interpretation and ignores the "type of things"
                 comment as well as the two statement directly opposing the
                 inclusion of the Bird 3ptr.
  - refs give the Celtics the calls... Ed twists the interpretation and takes
 	         a statement that was questioning HIS interpretation and he 
		 tries to claim it is an admission...

  - Ed later admits that he f**ked up on this and he was wrong.

3) Now... Meeks said "just" instead of "nothing more than" in one place, so
   Ed thinks he has an argument again...But, other than his attempts to prove
   that the statements are slightly different semantically, he has done nothing
   to show the relevance of the point.  For the point of the argument, what is
   the difference?
  - Ed has yet to show any, he just wants to win at something, due to a severe
    inferiority complex...


Anyway, let's put it this way as for as the "typing" is concerned.  
When the "types of things" was stated, it meant just that, the "types of
things".  The "type of thing" with the Bird 3ptr was "last second 3ptrs that
were of a questionable validity".  This "typing" was that it was nothing
more than/just home jobs ....  So, "last second 3ptrs that were of a 
questionable validity" are nothing more than/just home jobs.... Though I agree
with the type, I do not necessarily agree with your set.  Though we both agree
that the type exists, our individual sets that make up the type are different.
If you want to twist the meanings of things around and argue for monthes, fine,
I will continue.. no problem.  However, you have spent the last month trying
to make a stupid case out of nothing, and I have spent the last month
debating and disputing your stupid claims.  You are never going to get any
admission that I think nor said the Bird 3ptr was bogus, nor that it was a 
home job, or anything else.  All you have is your goofy attempts at semantic
surgery to prolong a meaningless argument.   I have tons of time to argue with
you, if you like, but let's pick a new topic, ok???  This isn't ending 
anything, and if you like, just agree and have the last word... There are tons
of things we could argue about now...
-- 
David T. Meeks                    ||" We are jigsaw pieces, aligned on the 
VMark Software, Inc.              ||  perimeter edge, 
uvmark!davem@merk.com             ||  interlocked through a missing piece"
davem%uvmark@merk.com             ||" ...This world is totally Fugazi"