From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Boston Bias
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:02:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.040104.9592@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.134637.69792@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>Where I disagree is that in your definition, "home job" == "bogus call".
>Where I disagree is that your definition, "home job"  == "calls that could
>go either way".
>
>>In that context, I flat out deny it to be true, and have done so time after
>>time.  
>"Job" (Webster): a criminal enterprise; specif: ROBBERY. 
>
>You can deny all you want, it doesn't sound like calls that could go either
>way.

So, according to you, a home job is ROBBERY???  A home job, the way I look
at it, are calls that COULD go either way, but go the way of the home team.
Let me clarify.  If the ref has to make a JUDGEMENT call, such as ruling on
a goaltending call, or foul, or such, on a player (such as MJ), or on a 
team, and the ruling goes in their favor, it is possible it could be what
can be described as a "home job", in my view.  Basically, the only difference
is that I don't describe a "home job" as being only "bogus calls".  If player
A drives the lane and runs player B down, the call could be either a charge
or a block (or nothing).  It is a call that could easily go either way.
A situation like the "bogus" goaltending called against McHale vs. the Pistons
was another situation.  Replay showed that it probably shouldn't have been 
called, as it did not appear to be in error.  However, in the refs view, it
was.. He could have called it or let it go, it could go both ways.  He chose
to call it against McHale in this case.  The Bird 3ptr, the judgement had
to be whether he stepped on the line, and if so, did he do so before he 
released the ball.  In most peoples eyes, it could go either way.  In the
refs eyes, the shot was a legal 3ptr.  Understand now.  I don't consider the
Bird 3ptr as bogus.  I consider it the correct call.  I do realize that the
play was so close that it could have gone the other way as well.  
>
>>And, yes, the "...bad call" admissions you speak of are nothing more
>>than you using a subpart of a statement in an attempt to make a point. 
>Yep, like using sarcasm to wimp out to be inconclusive, what else?
>

Didn't use sarcasm to wimp out of anything.  I used sarcasm because it was
the appropriate response to your moronic logic.  You decided to make it 
some kind of conclusive statement, when it wasn't.

>>No, because it has been obvious from the start to everyone but yourself that
>>has voiced an opinion that the comments, as a whole, are clearly not supportive
>>to your claim, whereas when you hack them up some, they do appear to support
>>you.
>Well, you still haven't been able to get around the 3 admissons of the
>3-ptr but to wimp out by sarcasm, redefine home-job, and redefine
>my context by your imagination. There is no need for "hack them up". 

No, I think, as do others, that I have "gotten around" the "admissions" 
pretty well.  You have yet to show any real admission of anything.  And, in
just about every case, it has been obvious that I have done everything BUT
admit, but rather have stated the opposite.

>>"cut-and-paste", as used by myself and many others(remember, it wasn't I 
>>who made the first reference to you doing so, but nate), 
>But others don't even know the original articles. They didn't keep
>the copies, so they believe your lies. I don't care about them since they were 
>your buddies. You kept the articles but still lied about my accusations.

And what "lies" are those Ed??? The lies of what I said include the printing
of the whole paragraph or sentence in question, as opposed to your only putting
up part of it???  And, you don't care about them since they were my buddies???
So far, it seems every person who has voiced an opinion has agreed that the
statements did not support you.  I guess anyone else who may say the same thing
would be considered "my buddy" as well, right??   Well, being I have never
met Nate, or Bis, or this UMASS guy, or anyone else, how are they "buddies" 
of mine???  Just because someone disagrees with Ed Lor does not make them 
my buddies.  I am sure that some of this people think I am just as much of
an ass as you, but just happen to think you are wrong...

>>seems to imply that
>>you, when making an argument, try to make a point by saying things like
>>"...bad call", and such, and then take it out of context.  
>Yep, since you can't deal with the initial accusations, why not just dodge
>them and cry "cut-and-paste"?

Ok, let's get off the "cut/paste" issue.  Let's get back to the actual 
comments, in whole, and look at them...

>If the premise is not true, there is NO HOKEY REASONING AT ALL. There is 
>no reason to attack the reasoning. The fact that you attacked the reasoning,
>rather than the premise, is your stupidity.

Why???  Because there were two issues.  A premise and the reasoning behind
it.  It will be practically impossible to prove/disprove your comments
on the ratios, as a lot of it has to do with individual opinion on whether
a call was bad, etc..  However, as others have also done, if we look at the
other side and look at your "conclusion", we find many faults with it as well.
> 
>>No need to "wimp out", since there never was any "admission" of 7 bad calls.
>>As others have pointed out and easily understood (and more people than just
>>Nate).   Since the entire comment was sarcastic, it should make sense that
>>the comment of 7 bad calls was sarcastic.  
>The sarcasm was only the "conclusive part". That's the sarcasm on
>the reasoning, not the premise.  Sarcasm on the 7 bad calls can be done by
>
>   "in the history of the game, there were only 78549 bad calls favoring the 
>    Celtics and 3 calls against?"
But, by the same token, it didn't say "Ok, I agree with you that their
were 7 bad calls vs 4, but that isn't very conclusive.".  There was no
agreement with you claim, just that the claim didn't seem to address any
real conclusion.

>
>>To further explain, look at it this
>>way...  In your argument, there are a few basic points...
>>1) The Bird shot was bogus   -> I completely disagree
>>2) You can list 7 calls you think were bogus in favor of the Cs, while the
>>list was only about 3 or so against the Cs, at least what was listed (and
>>referenced in the comment in question)
>>3) You equate this to a truth that the Cs receive the majority of calls in 
>>their favor.
>>
>>So, you imply that because of (2), (3) must be true.  In disagreeing with 
>>your "logic" (cough!!), it is simple enough to attack (2), as well as attack
>>(3).  
>>Stating the disagreement with your ratios and such, and the listing of
>>calls and everything else, such as the "survey" being done, et al...  are 
>>examples of looking at (2).  However, we can also attack (3), probably even
>>easier.  In doing so, we accept (2), not as being true, but as being 
>>allowed for the sake of argument.  Whether (2) is actually factual or not
>>has no basis on (3), for the sake of argument.  You claim that, since the
>>actual listed ratio was 7-3 (at least at the time of the comment), in the
>>history of the league, that that was conclusive enough evidence for you to
>>claim that Boston gets more home jobs than other teams.  
>But you only attack (3), the reasoning, by saying it's inconclusive. You
>showed no evidence of attacking (2) in your statement. 
>
>You could have invalidated (2) and not even bothered with (3). The implication
>then made no sense.  You didn't do that. You just tried to invalidated (3). 

Not true.  Because in invalidating (2), you could have just made up another
ratio of other calls YOU (<- see, not that I agree with,but you think) think
are bogus.   We have attacked (2) by getting the general opinion of the net,
as you yourself have stated before to be the telling proof.  So far, in the
limited data set available, the facts don't support you at this point.  
>
>It just like a reasoning of "Portland eliminated Chicago in the 1992 finals
>=> Portland was a better team than Chicago in 1992" If the premise is not 
>true at all, who would have been so stupid to argue the proposition. 
>
>
>>Again, no, I never "admit" that it was either.  The very first time I even 
>>use the "home job" phrase, I flat out state "Where did I defend it as just
>>a home job??? He didn't step on the line and the call was correct".  At the
>>end of the article, I state that the "TYPES of things you consider bogus are
>>nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere."  
>That's the admission. I consider the 3-ptr as that TYPE, so it's nothing
>more than home jobs to you.

But Ed, the initial comment was that He did not step on the line and that
the call was correct.  Types of things you consider bogus may include a lot
of things.  As a whole, (types of things you consider bogus) is equated
to be nothing more than home jobs that happen everywhere.  This does not
imply that I agree that everything you believe to be bogus is a home job.
There will be a large number of situations you will consider to be bogus
that I will not think are bogus.  But, I guess in your mind you now have the
right to say anything is bogus, and I will agree that it was a home job.
Ed Lor: "Hey, the fact the Reggie Lewis got selected for the AllStar game was
bogus"
According to Ed Lor, this must mean "Yeah, it was a home job"...

Yeah, right Ed...
-- 
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"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro