Some facts about what is the best overall sports conference
ConnMoore
various conference are in every sport the NCAA has ever crowned a national
champion in.
Here is how they stack up, bu the numbers. This is JUST the Big Six. I dont
care about the MVC or the WAC.
1) Pac Ten -314 National Championships
2) Big 10 or 11- 187 National Championships
3) Big 12- 147 National Championships
4) SEC- 127 National Championships
5) ACC- 73 National Championships
6) Big East- 68 National Championships
I included all the National Titles Notre Dame has ever won, (10) in the Big
East total, but I am not sure how many of those sports they actually play
League games in. (They have FOURTEEN damn teams playing in Basketball, and
they are still the most athletically inept conference)
Be aware that this does not include Division One Football Championships, since
the NCAA does NOT crown a champion in that sport. If you feel like trying to
add in mythical titles to your favorite conference, be my guest.
Broken down by schools
1) UCLA--- 87
2) Stanford-- 81
3) Southern California-- 77
4) Oklahoma State-- 43
5 ) (Tie) Louisiana State-- 34
5) (Tie) Texas-- 34
7) Michigan--31
8) North Carolina-- 29
9) Penn State-- 28
10 ) Iowa-- 22
The top three teams all have more national titles then the entire Big East and
ACC. Most suprising to me was Oklahoma State. I knew that they had a lot of
wrestling titles (30!!) But they also have had nine golf titles as well. Also
Louisiana State with their 34 Titles mostly centered on mens and womens Track
and Field.
If you are curious about what titles your favorite school might have won in
their storied past, here is a pretty cool link,
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html
This is why the Pac Ten is so well regarded when you start talking about
overall sports excellence. Its not just talk out of some Pac Ten homer,
(Which I admit to kind of being..despite the fact I hate all other Pac Ten
Schools that dont have a Duck as a mascot) It is borne out by the great
disparity in national championships, versus other conferences, despite being
the second smallest one..
See what happens when I get bored? I really should go pay attention to the
family...thanks a lot internet.
Cooley
>
> I decided to spend my day off playing with some numbers involving how good the
> various conference are in every sport the NCAA has ever crowned a national
> champion in.
It should be noted that there are a lot of minor sports that are not
really emphasized on a national scale, and others that openly reward
teams from warm weather climates. Examples of the former are things
like swimming, diving, water polo & men's volleyball, which are for all
intents and purposes California-only sports. (Granted, you could
include sports like lacrosse & hockey that are essentially only played
in the Northeast...but I think the warm-weather ones greatly outnumber
the cold-weather ones.) Examples of the latter include sports like
baseball, which allow for a disparity in the length of the season
between warm-weather and cold-weather teams.
I honestly don't know if there's really a way to compare different
programs, so perhaps yours is as good as any. It's just that there are
pitfalls in any comparison.
Cooley
Dick Sidbury
> I decided to spend my day off playing with some numbers involving how good the
> various conference are in every sport the NCAA has ever crowned a national
> champion in.
>
> Here is how they stack up, bu the numbers. This is JUST the Big Six. I dont
> care about the MVC or the WAC.
>
> 1) Pac Ten -314 National Championships
>
> 2) Big 10 or 11- 187 National Championships
>
> 3) Big 12- 147 National Championships
>
> 4) SEC- 127 National Championships
>
> 5) ACC- 73 National Championships
>
> 6) Big East- 68 National Championships
>
>
>
>
snip
> See what happens when I get bored? I really should go pay attention to the
> family...thanks a lot internet.
>
Well I didn't want to grade papers so I looked at some of the data. If
you count Ga Tech's football championship of a few years ago then all
schools in the ACC have won at least one championship. Before getting
bored I checked the PAC-10 and Big-10 (sort of -- I couldn't remember
but 9 of the teams in the PAC and 8 of the 11 in the Big) but I think
those two conferences also are 100 percent. Maybe someone else will
check out their favorite conferneces.
Now if someone will only find a way of weighting the championships so
that, say, basketball counts more than fencing, or maybe find how many
"final four" trips each league has.
dick
ConnMoore
>From: Dick Sidbury sid...@adelphia.net
>Well I didn't want to grade papers so I looked at some of the data. If
>you count Ga Tech's football championship of a few years ago then all
>schools in the ACC have won at least one championship. Before getting
>bored I checked the PAC-10 and Big-10 (sort of -- I couldn't remember
>but 9 of the teams in the PAC and 8 of the 11 in the Big) but I think
>those two conferences also are 100 percent. Maybe someone else will
>check out their favorite conferneces.
Counting Football titles is cheating...since there IS no actual NCAA champion
in football (God I hate that)
Here are the schools in the Big Six conferences that have no national titles in
any sport....
SEC
Mississippi
Mississippi St
Vanderbilt
South Carolina
Big East
Pittsburgh
Virginia Tech
Seton Hall
ACC
Georgia Tech (Yeah yeah..i know---and yes I know that Pitt has a MNC in
football too. They are still not "NcAA" champions)
Big 12
Baylor
Kansas State.
Every other school in the big six conferences has a national title is SOMETHING
in its history. The Big Ten and Pac Ten have winners for every school in their
conference.
>Now if someone will only find a way of weighting the championships so
>that, say, basketball counts more than fencing, or maybe find how many
>"final four" trips each league has.
its still going to skew towards the Pac Ten and Big Ten if you use Basketball
as a "Ultimate" sport. UCLA alone has more titles than any other entire
conference except the Big Ten. (I think both the Big Ten and UCLA have 11
titles...but I could be off one for the Big Ten) Four other Pac Ten schools
have won titles is addition to the Bruins, so I dont know if weighing it to
this sport will help any.
tho...@antispam.ham
> I decided to spend my day off playing with some numbers involving how good the
> various conference are in every sport the NCAA has ever crowned a national
> champion in.
With all that time, one might expect you to have done a better job.
> Here is how they stack up, bu the numbers. This is JUST the Big Six. I dont
> care about the MVC or the WAC.
>
> 1) Pac Ten -314 National Championships
>
> 2) Big 10 or 11- 187 National Championships
>
> 3) Big 12- 147 National Championships
>
> 4) SEC- 127 National Championships
>
> 5) ACC- 73 National Championships
>
> 6) Big East- 68 National Championships
Problem #1: the number of championships depends on the number of teams
in the conference.
Problem #2: the number of championships depends on how long the conference
has existed.
Problem #3: the quality of a conference can change from year to year,
therefore a total spanning decades doesn't say much about the quality
now.
> See what happens when I get bored?
Yep: bad statistics.
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
ConnMoore
>Date: 3/20/2002 3:03 AM Pacific
>Problem #1: the number of championships depends on the number of teams
>in the conference.
Since the team with the second fewest memebers has by far the most titles. And
the conference with the most teams has the least number of titles..This seems
kind of an odd problem you have.
>Problem #2: the number of championships depends on how long the conference
>has existed.
This is pretty dense of you.
It is counted up as teams within the conference. By that I mean that titles
Texas won while in the SWC still count towards the Big 12 total. There is no
such thing as a "NCAA Conference Title" so the length of time a conference
existed does not matter, only how long the schools have been around. The
schools in the ACC and Big East have been participating in athletics just as
long as the schools in the Big 10 and Pac Ten.
>Problem #3: the quality of a conference can change from year to year,
>therefore a total spanning decades doesn't say much about the quality
>now.
Well it can give a pretty good indication of how much history the teams in the
conferences have in a winning tradition. Its not like Baylor has suddenly
started pulling in national titles in Lacrosse this last year.
>
>> See what happens when I get bored?
>
>Yep: bad statistics.
>
>"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
I dont think you grasped it too well. I know it was complicated. But its not
like USC or Oregon has had more time to develop athletic programs than
Tennessee or Nebraska. Why does a school like Oregon actually have more
recognized National Titles than a Nebraska?
How do you explain the extreme edge the Pac Ten has over bigger conferences
with more schools? I explain it by saying the Pac Ten is just a better
athletic conference, because of the time and money put into the programs. That
is still proven today, by the fact that, despite being a little smaller than
the Big 12, or SEC, they have as many or more national titles in all sports
over the last couple of years.
So do you have a counter explanation?
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Problem #1: the number of championships depends on the number of teams
>> in the conference.
> Since the team with the second fewest memebers has by far the most titles.
I thought we were talking about conferences, not teams.
What are "memebers"?
And where is the rest of your sentence?
> And the conference with the most teams has the least number of titles..
Doesn't change the fact that the more teams a conference has, the greater
the number of chances to win a championship.
> This seems kind of an odd problem you have.
It's not my problem, but rather yours. Counting the total number of
championships doesn't do anything to prove which conference has the
highest quality now, for the reasons I already gave.
>> Problem #2: the number of championships depends on how long the conference
>> has existed.
> This is pretty dense of you.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> It is counted up as teams within the conference.
I thought you were counting championships, not teams.
> By that I mean that titles Texas won while in the SWC still count towards
> the Big 12 total.
Still doesn't change the fact that the number of championships depends on
how long a conference has existed.
> There is no such thing as a "NCAA Conference Title"
Irrelevant, given that I never said there is such a thing.
> so the length of time a conference existed does not matter,
Sure it does. A conference can't win any championships prior to its
existence.
> only how long the schools have been around.
Ah, you're beginning to catch on to the nature of your problem.
> The schools in the ACC and Big East have been participating in athletics
> just as long as the schools in the Big 10 and Pac Ten.
On what basis do you make that claim?
>> Problem #3: the quality of a conference can change from year to year,
>> therefore a total spanning decades doesn't say much about the quality
>> now.
> Well it can give a pretty good indication of how much history the teams
> in the conferences have in a winning tradition.
Irrelevant, given that the issue is quality of a conference, not
tradition.
> Its not like Baylor has suddenly started pulling in national titles
> in Lacrosse this last year.
Irrelevant, given that I never said it is like that.
>>> See what happens when I get bored?
>> Yep: bad statistics.
>>
>> "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
> I dont think you grasped it too well.
What you think is also irrelevant. I know that I grasped it all too
well.
> I know it was complicated.
Too complicated for you to produce anything substantive related to the
issue.
> But its not like USC or Oregon has had more time to develop athletic
> programs than Tennessee or Nebraska.
Do you have the year of founding for each of those schools?
> Why does a school like Oregon actually have more recognized National
> Titles than a Nebraska?
That presupposes that Oregon has more "recognized National Titles"
than Nebraska. Where's your substantiation? But what does that
have to do with the quality of a conference now?
> How do you explain the extreme edge the Pac Ten has over bigger
> conferences with more schools?
That presupposes an extreme edge. Where is your substantiation?
> I explain it by saying the Pac Ten is just a better athletic
> conference,
What does the conference have to do with Oregon developing an athletic
program? For example, did not Arizona and Arizona State develop most
of their athletic programs before they even joined the Pac 8?
> because of the time and money put into the programs.
Time and money do not necessarily make a better athletic program.
> That is still proven today, by the fact that, despite being a little
> smaller than the Big 12, or SEC, they have as many or more national
> titles in all sports over the last couple of years.
That presupposes as many or more national titles. Where is your
substantiation?
> So do you have a counter explanation?
I don't need one, given that I didn't make a counter claim. You
made a claim, which calls for you to substantiate that claim. The
statistics you provided were not sufficient to do that, because of
the problems I noted.
Randolph M. Jones
tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
> ConnMoore writes:
>
>
>>I decided to spend my day off playing with some numbers involving how good the
>>various conference are in every sport the NCAA has ever crowned a national
>>champion in.
>>
>
> With all that time, one might expect you to have done a better job.
>
>
>>Here is how they stack up, bu the numbers. This is JUST the Big Six. I dont
>>care about the MVC or the WAC.
>>
>>1) Pac Ten -314 National Championships
>>
>>2) Big 10 or 11- 187 National Championships
>>
>>3) Big 12- 147 National Championships
>>
>>4) SEC- 127 National Championships
>>
>>5) ACC- 73 National Championships
>>
>>6) Big East- 68 National Championships
>>
>
> Problem #1: the number of championships depends on the number of teams
> in the conference.
Of the above conferences, only the ACC has fewer teams than the Pac 10.
>
> Problem #2: the number of championships depends on how long the conference
> has existed.
He made it clear he counted any championships ever won by schools that
are *now* in the conference.
>
> Problem #3: the quality of a conference can change from year to year,
> therefore a total spanning decades doesn't say much about the quality
> now.
Are you somehow suggesting that the Pac 10 doesn't have many
championships in recent years?
tho...@antispam.ham
>> ConnMoore writes:
>>> I decided to spend my day off playing with some numbers involving how good the
>>> various conference are in every sport the NCAA has ever crowned a national
>>> champion in.
>> With all that time, one might expect you to have done a better job.
>>> Here is how they stack up, bu the numbers. This is JUST the Big Six. I dont
>>> care about the MVC or the WAC.
>>>
>>> 1) Pac Ten -314 National Championships
>>>
>>> 2) Big 10 or 11- 187 National Championships
>>>
>>> 3) Big 12- 147 National Championships
>>>
>>> 4) SEC- 127 National Championships
>>>
>>> 5) ACC- 73 National Championships
>>>
>>> 6) Big East- 68 National Championships
>> Problem #1: the number of championships depends on the number of teams
>> in the conference.
> Of the above conferences, only the ACC has fewer teams than the Pac 10.
Doesn't change the fact that the more teams a conference has, the more
chances that conference has to win a championship.
>> Problem #2: the number of championships depends on how long the conference
>> has existed.
> He made it clear he counted any championships ever won by schools that
> are *now* in the conference.
Still doesn't change the fact that the longer the conference has existed,
the greater the number of chances for winning a championship.
>> Problem #3: the quality of a conference can change from year to year,
>> therefore a total spanning decades doesn't say much about the quality
>> now.
> Are you somehow suggesting that the Pac 10 doesn't have many
> championships in recent years?
I'm somehow suggesting that what happened twenty years ago doesn't
say much about what is happening now.
Jonathan Patrick Elders
> >Subject: Re: Some facts about what is the best overall sports conference
> >From: tho...@AntiSpam.ham
> >Date: 3/20/2002 3:03 AM Pacific
> >Problem #2: the number of championships depends on how long the conference
> >has existed.
> This is pretty dense of you.
> It is counted up as teams within the conference. By that I mean that titles
> Texas won while in the SWC still count towards the Big 12 total. There is no
> such thing as a "NCAA Conference Title" so the length of time a conference
> existed does not matter, only how long the schools have been around. The
> schools in the ACC and Big East have been participating in athletics just as
> long as the schools in the Big 10 and Pac Ten.
And if you're counting the Texas/aTm/Tech championships from the SWC, it's
only fair to count SMU, Rice, TCU, Houston, (and Sasnakra's as needed)
championships in the same conference. I'm reasonably certain that it counted
as a major conference until recently...
jim andrews
senato...@nospam.yahoo.com says...
> ConnMoore wrote:
> >
> > I decided to spend my day off playing with some numbers involving how good the
> > various conference are in every sport the NCAA has ever crowned a national
> > champion in.
>
> It should be noted that there are a lot of minor sports that are not
> really emphasized on a national scale, and others that openly reward
> teams from warm weather climates. Examples of the former are things
> like swimming, diving, water polo & men's volleyball, which are for all
> intents and purposes California-only sports.
Huh? I agree that his analysis has a huge glaring flaw,
and that's his ridiculous attempt to sweep college football
under the rug, but to call swimming and diving "California
only" sports is just as ridiculous. See, for instance,
Texas, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, etc.
And what about the cold-weather sports? Skiing, for example?
jim andrews
jim andrews
conn...@aol.com says...
> Counting Football titles is cheating...since there IS no actual NCAA champion
> in football
This is too stupid. You've just thrown away 100+ "points"
in your analysis because you can't find away to resolve the
fact that there are maybe 200 teams total that contend for
those 100+ points.
College football is arguably the "most important" sport. It
is certainly one of the top two in terms of level of effort
and funding put into it. Don't ignore it. Why not use the
polls and award 0.5 points to each #1 in the AP and UPI polls
(and their successors) and then see how your analysis shakes
out? I daresay Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado
would contribute more towards this perceived "imbalance" of
yours than the various Pac 10 football "champions" would.
It wouldn't hurt Notre Dame, the Big 10+, or the SEC, either.
Which brings up another point -- did you count Arkansas'
championships, which I presume total in the many 10s if we
look at track and cross country, as SEC championships? I
say that's specious reasoning, myself.
jim andrews
Warren Lushia
ConnMoore wrote:
yeah, but lets put it into perspective:
https://goomer.ncaa.org/ows-bin/rwcgi60?p_sport_institution
when you consider the participation of some of these sports, it skews the results.
for instance, the top 3 schools (all pac-10) are water polo powerhouses. when you
consider there is 23 mens teams and 30 womens teams, the numbers look a little less
impressive. there are a good number of the sports that have very little
participation. and, i would say if you'd like to compare the conferences with one
another, you need to use sports in which all the conferences you are comparing
participate equally, or it really doesn't make any sense.
that being said, if the smaller sports which are not equally represented among the
conferences (ie, water polo etc.) are taken out, i'd bet the pac-10 would still come
out on top. the difference just wouldn't be as dramatic.
warren..
Jim Weeks
"Jonathan Patrick Elders" <jp...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.102032...@hilton.cec.wustl.edu...
so does the SEC get to count Fla St ?
jpw
Randolph M. Jones
tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
> Randolph M. Jones writes:
>
>
>>>ConnMoore writes:
>>>
>
>>>>I decided to spend my day off playing with some numbers involving how good the
>>>>various conference are in every sport the NCAA has ever crowned a national
>>>>champion in.
>>>>
>
>>>With all that time, one might expect you to have done a better job.
>>>
>
>>>>Here is how they stack up, bu the numbers. This is JUST the Big Six. I dont
>>>>care about the MVC or the WAC.
>>>>
>>>>1) Pac Ten -314 National Championships
>>>>
>>>>2) Big 10 or 11- 187 National Championships
>>>>
>>>>3) Big 12- 147 National Championships
>>>>
>>>>4) SEC- 127 National Championships
>>>>
>>>>5) ACC- 73 National Championships
>>>>
>>>>6) Big East- 68 National Championships
>>>>
>
>>>Problem #1: the number of championships depends on the number of teams
>>>in the conference.
>>>
>
>>Of the above conferences, only the ACC has fewer teams than the Pac 10.
>>
>
> Doesn't change the fact that the more teams a conference has, the more
> chances that conference has to win a championship.
But it does challenge the notion that it's a "problem" with the analysis.
>
>
>>>Problem #2: the number of championships depends on how long the conference
>>>has existed.
>>>
>
>>He made it clear he counted any championships ever won by schools that
>>are *now* in the conference.
>>
>
> Still doesn't change the fact that the longer the conference has existed,
> the greater the number of chances for winning a championship.
But it does challenge the notion that it's a "problem" with the analysis.
>
>
>>>Problem #3: the quality of a conference can change from year to year,
>>>therefore a total spanning decades doesn't say much about the quality
>>>now.
>>>
>
>>Are you somehow suggesting that the Pac 10 doesn't have many
>>championships in recent years?
>>
>
> I'm somehow suggesting that what happened twenty years ago doesn't
> say much about what is happening now.
>
>
Which also isn't a "problem", because the Pac 10 is still winning most
of the championships. It's also not a "problem" because the original
poster didn't say he was interested in what is happening now.
jbird
don't forget real "brane" sports too like chess.
Chess sports dudes make football player sports dudes look like idots.
PP PP
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP tttttt ttttttt
PP PP ii ttt ttt
PP ii ii it tt tt tt tt
PP iii iii ttt tt
Daniel Seriff
>> Problem #1: the number of championships depends on the number of teams
>> in the conference.
>
> Since the team with the second fewest memebers has by far the most titles.
> And
> the conference with the most teams has the least number of titles..This seems
> kind of an odd problem you have.
You're both missing the point. The number of championships has more to do
with the number of sports a given school participates in than anything else.
If the Big 12 doesn't participate in underwater basketweaving
(hypothetically), then saying that the Pac-10 is better than the Big 12 in
underwater basketweaving doesn't have any meaning whatsoever, as there is no
point of comparison.
When comparing two conferences on an overall level, including titles in
sports that one conference doesn't participate in is disingenuous at best.
--
Daniel Seriff
I never worry that all hell will break loose. My concern is that only part
of hell will break loose and be much harder to detect.
-Carlin
jbird
ConnMoore wrote:
ference)
>
> Be aware that this does not include Division One Football Championships, since
> the NCAA does NOT crown a champion in that sport. If you feel like trying to
> add in mythical titles to your favorite conference, be my guest.
>
in that case alabama has 71 national titles in football and the case is
closed.
ConnMoore
>From: tho...@AntiSpam.ham
>
>I thought we were talking about conferences, not teams.
>
>What are "memebers"?
>
Apparently you are one.
>It's not my problem, but rather yours. Counting the total number of
>championships doesn't do anything to prove which conference has the
>highest quality now, for the reasons I already gave.
Since you gave no real reasons...does that mean you are wrong?
>> This is pretty dense of you.
>
>Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
No...you are actually dense. Its not an invective. You just cant seem to
grasp concpts very well and take out the frustration of your lack of learning
ability on usenet message boards.
>> It is counted up as teams within the conference.
>
>I thought you were counting championships, not team
Yes..TEAMS win championships. They happen to be in conferences. Its pretty
easy to count up the number of NCAA championships teams in a conference have
won.
>Still doesn't change the fact that the number of championships depends on
>how long a conference has existed
No it doesnt. The Big 12 has existed for less than ten years. The teams
within the conference have been involved with athletics for as long as the NCAA
has existed. Those twelve schools have ammassed 147 National titles. Why have
they won less than half of what the Pac Ten schools have won?
>> There is no such thing as a "NCAA Conference Title"
>
>Irrelevant, given that I never said there is such a thing.
You cant seem to grasp that teams win titles, not conferences. I was trying to
help.
>> so the length of time a conference existed does not matter,
>
>Sure it does. A conference can't win any championships prior to its
>existence.
>
See above------you already contadict yourself.
>> only how long the schools have been around.
>
>Ah, you're beginning to catch on to the nature of your problem.
>
And the Pac Ten teams are not older or been involved in athletics longer than
the Big East Teams. Sorry.
> The schools in the ACC and Big East have been participating in athletics
>> just as long as the schools in the Big 10 and Pac Ten.
>
>On what basis do you make that claim?
Because its true? We dont even have to go back to see how long the schools
have been in existance. Only as far back as the NCAA has been recognizing
champions, since that is what are being discussed here. .
>has had more time to develop athletic
>> programs than Tennessee or Nebraska.
>
>Do you have the year of founding for each of those schools?
You really are this desperate for an argument?
>That presupposes that Oregon has more "recognized National Titles"
>than Nebraska. Where's your substantiation? But what does that
>have to do with the quality of a conference now?
Well...jesus. Its like talking to a special ed student here. The NCAA
recognizes certain sports. They honor some of those sports with a
championship. My substantiation is that Oregon is creditied with winning 13
NCAA titles and Nebraska is credited with winning 12. I gave the link to the
NCA's site in my first post, but here it is again. You have to highlight the
school, and it will not only tell you how many titles the school has, but what
those titles were in. Maybe you can get someone to help you do this. Dont
forget, if a number is "Higher" that means more. Okay?
Here is the link.
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html
>> How do you explain the extreme edge the Pac Ten has over bigger
>> conferences with more schools?
>
>That presupposes an extreme edge. Where is your substantiation?
>
The teams within the Pac Ten have won 314 recognized NCAA titles. The Pac Ten
has 10 member schools. The Big Ten schools are second. (And dont forget, the
Big Ten has, yes, 11 members) and between them they have 187 recognized
national titles. That is an "Extreme edge"
>
>What does the conference have to do with Oregon developing an athletic
>program
Part of it has to do with the fact that Oregon is having to compete with
schools that have always put an lot of emphasis on sports programs. In order
to stay competititive in a conference that puts an emphasis on athletics they
have had to find sports they can compete in and then become very good at it.
>For example, did not Arizona and Arizona State develop most
>of their athletic programs before they even joined the Pac 8?
>
Yep..and that is what is so interesting about this. Why does the Pac Ten, as
an overall conference, have so many more national titles, than any other
conference? They dont have more schools in the conference. They dont have a
longer history of playing sports. Do you have a theory at all?
>
>> because of the time and money put into the programs.
>
>Time and money do not necessarily make a better athletic program.
HAHAHAH..What do you think does it? Magic pixies coming around and giving the
teams a competitive edge? I would love to hear your ideas on what can create a
good athletic program.
>> smaller than the Big 12, or SEC, they have as many or more national
>> titles in all sports over the last couple of years.
>
>That presupposes as many or more national titles. Where is your
>substantiation
Ummm...well. Do I really have to explain how the concepts of numbers works?
because if I am going to have to conitinue to explain first grade math
principles to you, I better start getting paid. Count them yourself. I have
done so numerous times, but you dont seem to want to accept those numbers.
>I don't need one, given that I didn't make a counter claim. You
>made a claim, which calls for you to substantiate that claim. The
>statistics you provided were not sufficient to do that, because of
>the problems I noted.
>
now THIS is an argument.
"I dont need a counter claim, because I did not believe anything you said."
Which is moron speak for.
"I dont have anything better to do, so I will argue for the sake of arguing,
but I really dont have anything to say"
Nice job
ConnMoore
>that being said, if the smaller sports which are not equally represented
>among the
>conferences (ie, water polo etc.) are taken out, i'd bet the pac-10 would
>still come
>out on top. the difference just wouldn't be as dramatic.
I totally agree. There are sports, (Like Water Polo, and Volleyball) that the
Pac Ten had a huge jump on. Of course there are other sports that the Pac Ten
just sucks in (Wrestling, Hockey) What these numbers point out is that the Pac
Ten is involved in more sports than any other conference, and they do very
well in those sports. No other conference is as good accross the board as the
Pac Ten, when you include all sports.
This came about because someone was saying that the Big 12 was the "Best Sports
Conference in America"
Maybe this would work better for some people if we counted up the number of
titels won in NCAA competition in the last ten years or so.
I would be willing to bet a couple of things
1) The Pac Ten would still have the most NCAA recognized titles, among all the
conferences.
2) The disparity would not be as great as it is in the "All Time" rankings,
because I think that other schools are catching up on competeting in womens
events, and some of the minor sports.
Ugh...anyone want to do that?
ConnMoore
>This is too stupid. You've just thrown away 100+ "points"
>in your analysis because you can't find away to resolve the
>fact that there are maybe 200 teams total that contend for
>those 100+ points.
>
its not my analysis, its the NCAA's. As tough as it is to accept they do not
crown a national champion in Division one football.
I did say in my original post, if anyone wants to go back in time, and pick out
their favorite wire service or poll to choose as the officially recognized
Ntional Champion in their sport, they were more than welcome to do it. You can
probably add, what? 20 to the Big twelve total? 15 to the SEC? 4 or 5 to the
ACC? 10 or 15 to the Big East. 10 or so to the PAc Ten?
And a whole lot to the Service acadamys.
>College football is arguably the "most important" sport. It
>is certainly one of the top two in terms of level of effort
>and funding put into it. Don't ignore it. Why not use the
>polls and award 0.5 points to each #1 in the AP and UPI polls
>(and their successors) and then see how your analysis shakes
>out? I daresay Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado
>would contribute more towards this perceived "imbalance" of
>yours than the various Pac 10 football "champions" would.
>It wouldn't hurt Notre Dame, the Big 10+, or the SEC, either.
jim..I AGREE, totally. I dont think it is going to change the "Imbalance" that
much, but it would change the numbers slightly. I swear, I did say in my
original post that anyone that wanted to make the effort was my guest to do so.
It would help the Big 12 and the Big East the most, but of course the problem
is, is it is only one sport, despite the fact it is arguably the most important
sport.
>Which brings up another point -- did you count Arkansas'
>championships, which I presume total in the many 10s if we
>look at track and cross country, as SEC championships? I
>say that's specious reasoning, myself.
>
I know.....but can you think of a better way to count these things up? I guess
the BEST way would be to go to the founding of the Big 12, and see how many
national titles they have won in that time, and compare them the other
conferences during that period. I firmly believe that the Pac Ten would still
have, by far, the most national titles, but I also believe the disparity would
be considerably less. . I would be curious to see how schools are doing now,
versus how they have done throughout the run of the NCAA. However its not like
these schools only started athletics when they joined the Big 12.
All I was doing was counting up the number of national titles schools in these
conferences have all time. I daresay that adding nebraska, Oklahoma state and
Oklahoma and taking out TCU and SMU ADDS to a conferences total, rather than
detracts from it. Its pretty easy to go and check though.
ConnMoore
>in that case alabama has 71 national titles in football and the case is
>closed.
Look..Im STILL pissed at Alabama...they DESTROYED MY BRACKET.....
God I hate them now.
And it is 83 national titles in football for the Crimson tide, because the
Alabama legislature voted to ignore all results against Notre Dame, them being
a "Pagan" school.
ConnMoore
>When comparing two conferences on an overall level, including titles in
>sports that one conference doesn't participate in is disingenuous at best.
this is a great point, and one that is going to be pretty tough to get past.
What brought up the entire thread was the idea that the Big 12 was the
"Overall best sports conference" in the country.
Unfortunately participating in sports is required to be the best overall. Part
of what makes the Pac Ten so impressive is they participate in a lot of sports,
and they do so early on. Eventually the other conferences catch on and begin
catching up, but this doesnt change the fact that the Pac Ten usually has a big
head start.
Now if you want to go on a sport by sport basis, that would be fun. I would
love to see the results.
Warren Lushia
ConnMoore wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Some facts about what is the best overall sports conference
> >From: Warren Lushia wal...@NoSpam.uky.edu
>
> >that being said, if the smaller sports which are not equally represented
> >among the
> >conferences (ie, water polo etc.) are taken out, i'd bet the pac-10 would
> >still come
> >out on top. the difference just wouldn't be as dramatic.
>
> I totally agree. There are sports, (Like Water Polo, and Volleyball) that the
> Pac Ten had a huge jump on. Of course there are other sports that the Pac Ten
> just sucks in (Wrestling, Hockey) What these numbers point out is that the Pac
> Ten is involved in more sports than any other conference, and they do very
> well in those sports. No other conference is as good accross the board as the
> Pac Ten, when you include all sports.
just a minor nit, since i do agree with your general point about the pac-10 being
the overall best sports conference -- but i also think we need to be careful using
the conference name "pac-10" and simply adding all the schools championships and
calling them "pac-10 championships" -- ie, we need to differentiate between a team
and a conference. there IS NO pac-10 conference in water polo or mens volleyball,
or several other sports. yet, there is a pac-10 in wrestling. additionally, in
some sports the pac-10 has some different schools in it -- check it out, i ain't
lying (actually, i think wrestling is one of them).
take stanford for instance, look at the sports they play. about half of them are
not in the pac-10 (or it might be closer to 1/3, i didn't add them up).
warren..
jim andrews
conn...@aol.com says...
> Now if you want to go on a sport by sport basis, that would be fun. I would
> love to see the results.
Why not normalize the championships to the total number
of sports that conference has schools participating in?
It wouldn't clear things up completely, because some
schools elect not to participate in all the same sports,
but it would get you closer.
And throw in those damn football polls while you're at it!
jim andrews
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>> ConnMoore writes:
>>>>> I decided to spend my day off playing with some numbers involving how good the
>>>>> various conference are in every sport the NCAA has ever crowned a national
>>>>> champion in.
>>>> With all that time, one might expect you to have done a better job.
>>>>> Here is how they stack up, bu the numbers. This is JUST the Big Six. I dont
>>>>> care about the MVC or the WAC.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Pac Ten -314 National Championships
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Big 10 or 11- 187 National Championships
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Big 12- 147 National Championships
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) SEC- 127 National Championships
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) ACC- 73 National Championships
>>>>>
>>>>> 6) Big East- 68 National Championships
>>>> Problem #1: the number of championships depends on the number of teams
>>>> in the conference.
>>> Of the above conferences, only the ACC has fewer teams than the Pac 10.
>> Doesn't change the fact that the more teams a conference has, the more
>> chances that conference has to win a championship.
> But it does challenge the notion that it's a "problem" with the analysis.
No it doesn't; the basic method is flawed, and there are multiple flaws,
not just one. Look at the whole package.
>>>> Problem #2: the number of championships depends on how long the conference
>>>> has existed.
>>> He made it clear he counted any championships ever won by schools that
>>> are *now* in the conference.
>> Still doesn't change the fact that the longer the conference has existed,
>> the greater the number of chances for winning a championship.
> But it does challenge the notion that it's a "problem" with the analysis.
No it doesn't; the basic method is flawed, and there are multiple flaws,
not just one. Look at the whole package.
>>>> Problem #3: the quality of a conference can change from year to year,
>>>> therefore a total spanning decades doesn't say much about the quality
>>>> now.
>>> Are you somehow suggesting that the Pac 10 doesn't have many
>>> championships in recent years?
>> I'm somehow suggesting that what happened twenty years ago doesn't
>> say much about what is happening now.
> Which also isn't a "problem",
I disagree.
> because the Pac 10 is still winning most of the championships.
Evidence, please.
> It's also not a "problem" because the original
> poster didn't say he was interested in what is happening now.
On the contrary, he used the present tense "is".
Problem #4: football was ignored.
Problem #5: it presupposes that number of championships is a measure of
quality. Tell me, which conference is better, one that has 2 championships
and a bunch of also-rans, or one that has 1 championship and a load of
runner-up finishes?
tho...@antispam.ham
>> I thought we were talking about conferences, not teams.
Note: no response.
>> What are "memebers"?
> Apparently you are one.
What appears to you is irrelevant.
>> It's not my problem, but rather yours. Counting the total number of
>> championships doesn't do anything to prove which conference has the
>> highest quality now, for the reasons I already gave.
> Since you gave no real reasons...
Suffering from reading comprehension problems? I gave three reasons,
and I've got more.
> does that mean you are wrong?
You're erroneously presupposing that I gave no real reasons.
>>> This is pretty dense of you.
>> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> No...you are actually dense.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> Its not an invective.
Obviously you don't even know the meaning of the word.
> You just cant seem to grasp concpts very well
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> and take out the frustration of your lack of learning ability on usenet
> message boards.
You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't grasped the concpts [sic]
very well. But that's rather ironic, coming from the person who hasn't
grasped the problems with his analysis very well.
>>> It is counted up as teams within the conference.
>> I thought you were counting championships, not team
> Yes..TEAMS win championships.
Non sequitur. Counting championships is not the same as counting teams
within the conference.
> They happen to be in conferences.
Still doesn't change the fact that counting championships is not the same
as counting teams within the conference.
> Its pretty easy to count up the number of NCAA championships teams in
> a conference have won.
Which is rather different from counting up teams within the conference,
which is what you stated above.
>> Still doesn't change the fact that the number of championships depends on
>> how long a conference has existed
> No it doesnt. The Big 12 has existed for less than ten years.
Incorrect; the Big XII has existed for hundreds of years. You have to be
consistent in the way you count championships and the way you count existence.
> The teams within the conference have been involved with athletics for as long
> as the NCAA has existed.
But not necessarily as Division I. Or do you also intend to count a
Division I championship equivalently to a Division II championship?
> Those twelve schools have ammassed 147 National titles.
And hundreds of years of existence. As I said, count consistently.
> Why have they won less than half of what the Pac Ten schools have won?
You're presupposing that they've won less than half.
>>> There is no such thing as a "NCAA Conference Title"
>> Irrelevant, given that I never said there is such a thing.
> You cant seem to grasp that teams win titles, not conferences.
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems? Why keep talking
about something that I never said anything about?
> I was trying to help.
By writing non sequiturs?
>>> so the length of time a conference existed does not matter,
>> Sure it does. A conference can't win any championships prior to its
>> existence.
> See above------you already contadict yourself.
You're erroneously presupposing the existence of a "contadiction" [sic].
>>> only how long the schools have been around.
>> Ah, you're beginning to catch on to the nature of your problem.
> And the Pac Ten teams are not older or been involved in athletics longer
> than the Big East Teams.
Evidence, please. (Of course, your claim extended beyond just the Pac 10 and
Big East.)
> Sorry.
For what?
>>> The schools in the ACC and Big East have been participating in athletics
>>> just as long as the schools in the Big 10 and Pac Ten.
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> Because its true?
Repeating a pontification won't make it any more substantiated.
> We dont even have to go back to see how long the schools
> have been in existance.
Sure you do. In some cases, you need to go back to see how long they've
participated in Division I.
> Only as far back as the NCAA has been recognizing
> champions, since that is what are being discussed here. .
Ah, so we have yet another problem, namely that you intend to ignore
championships prior to the NCAA organizing things. So, you're getting
restrictive.
>>> has had more time to develop athletic
>>> programs than Tennessee or Nebraska.
>> Do you have the year of founding for each of those schools?
> You really are this desperate for an argument?
I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there. It's
so much easier to pontificate.
>> That presupposes that Oregon has more "recognized National Titles"
>> than Nebraska. Where's your substantiation? But what does that
>> have to do with the quality of a conference now?
> Well...jesus. Its like talking to a special ed student here.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> The NCAA recognizes certain sports.
Irrelevant, given that I never said otherwise.
> They honor some of those sports with a championship.
Irrelevant, given that I never said otherwise.
> My substantiation is that Oregon is creditied with winning 13
> NCAA titles and Nebraska is credited with winning 12.
Evidence, please. You already admitted to ignoring football. How
convenient for you.
> I gave the link to the NCA's site in my first post,
I'm not interested in an "NCA" site.
> but here it is again. You have to highlight the school, and it will
> not only tell you how many titles the school has, but what those
> titles were in.
But it won't tell you anything about the quality of the athletic
program. For example, which school has the better athletic program,
one that finishes as the runner-up in every sport, but with ZERO
championships, or one that managed to win ONE championship but is
an also-ran in all other sports? Yet another very basic flaw in
your analysis.
> Maybe you can get someone to help you do this.
Why would I want to repeat an analysis using your flawed methods?
> Dont forget, if a number is "Higher" that means more. Okay?
Don't forget, if a number is "higher", that doesn't mean "better".
> Here is the link.
>
> http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html
That link doesn't have anything to do with the "NCA" you referred to
above.
>>> How do you explain the extreme edge the Pac Ten has over bigger
>>> conferences with more schools?
>> That presupposes an extreme edge. Where is your substantiation?
> The teams within the Pac Ten have won 314 recognized NCAA titles.
Which is hardly a measure of athletic program quality. Over how many
years were those titles earned?
> The Pac Ten has 10 member schools.
Well, at least the conference knows how to count.
> The Big Ten schools are second.
There's a conference that doesn't know how to count.
> (And dont forget, the Big Ten has, yes, 11 members)
Amazing! You know how to count!
> and between them they have 187 recognized national titles.
Which is hardly a measure of athletic program quality. Over how many
years were those titles earned?
> That is an "Extreme edge"
Not in quality of athletic program.
>> What does the conference have to do with Oregon developing an athletic
>> program
> Part of it has to do with the fact that Oregon is having to compete with
> schools that have always put an lot of emphasis on sports programs. In order
> to stay competititive in a conference that puts an emphasis on athletics they
> have had to find sports they can compete in and then become very good at it.
That's something you do before you petition for admission to a conference.
>> For example, did not Arizona and Arizona State develop most
>> of their athletic programs before they even joined the Pac 8?
> Yep..
Thus another flaw in your analysis.
> and that is what is so interesting about this. Why does the Pac Ten, as
> an overall conference, have so many more national titles, than any other
> conference?
You really are stuck in the mud. The issue here is quality of program,
not number of championships.
> They dont have more schools in the conference.
How about competing in sports with fewer competing schools? That also
increases the odds. Yet another problem with your analysis.
> They dont have a longer history of playing sports.
On what basis do you make that claim?
> Do you have a theory at all?
Yes: your analysis is flawed.
>>> because of the time and money put into the programs.
>> Time and money do not necessarily make a better athletic program.
> HAHAHAH..What do you think does it?
Good people.
> Magic pixies coming around and giving the teams a competitive edge?
Illogical.
> I would love to hear your ideas on what can create a
> good athletic program.
See above.
>>> smaller than the Big 12, or SEC, they have as many or more national
>>> titles in all sports over the last couple of years.
>> That presupposes as many or more national titles. Where is your
>> substantiation
> Ummm...well. Do I really have to explain how the concepts of numbers works?
No, but you do have to explain how the concepts of your analysis work.
> because if I am going to have to conitinue to explain first grade math
> principles to you, I better start getting paid.
The key word here is "if". You never did, so why pretend you need to?
Meanwhile, it's quite obvious that you haven't mastered grade school
spelling. Witness "conitinue" as the latest example.
> Count them yourself.
Why should I repeat a flawed analysis?
> I have done so numerous times,
Probably because you have to keep reinforcing your weak position that
quality is somehow connected to championships.
> but you dont seem to want to accept those numbers.
Very good! Now, when will you admit that 10 second-place finishes
means a better program than 1 championship and a bunch of also-rans?
>> I don't need one, given that I didn't make a counter claim. You
>> made a claim, which calls for you to substantiate that claim. The
>> statistics you provided were not sufficient to do that, because of
>> the problems I noted.
> now THIS is an argument.
Your five-word sentence is hardly an argument.
> "I dont need a counter claim, because I did not believe anything you said."
Where did that quotation come from? Still suffering from reading
comprehension problems?
> Which is moron speak for.
For what?
> "I dont have anything better to do, so I will argue for the sake of arguing,
> but I really dont have anything to say"
Where did that quotation come from? Still suffering from reading
comprehension problems? Since when does someone have to take a
position to challenge someone else's position?
> Nice job
Better than yours.
ConnMoore
>Date: 3/20/2002 3:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>Suffering from reading comprehension problems? I gave three reasons,
>and I've got more.
As I said--and others have tried to point out to your rather limited ability to
understand...you did not give any reasons.
>> does that mean you are wrong?
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that I gave no real reasons.
\
You gave no reasons---it is not erroneous.
>> No...you are actually dense.
>
>Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
Its not an "Invective" if it is true. You ARE dense. Its not meant as an
insult, its meant as an observation. You do not understand simple concepts
very well at all.
>> You just cant seem to grasp concpts very well
>
>Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
it pertains to this argument because I have to keep explaing things that any
normal human being would understand the first time. It makes these posts
tedious and boring, becuase I seriously feel like a am coorosponding with a
special ed student.
>You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't grasped the concpts [sic]
>very well. But that's rather ironic, coming from the person who hasn't
>grasped the problems with his analysis very well.
>
You obviously have not grasped it because you keep asking idiotic questions
that have been answered in previous posts.
>>> I thought you were counting championships, not team
>
>> Yes..TEAMS win championships.
>
>Non sequitur. Counting championships is not the same as counting teams
>within the conference.
>
Does this still make sense to you, after you have looked at it again?
>> They happen to be in conferences.
>
>Still doesn't change the fact that counting championships is not the same
>as counting teams within the conference.
>
What the hell are you talking about?
>> Its pretty easy to count up the number of NCAA championships teams in
>> a conference have won.
>
>Which is rather different from counting up teams within the conference,
>which is what you stated above.
Okay..lets keep it simple then...
The Pac Ten as a group of teams, has almost twice as many titles as any other
group of teams that have affiliated themselves as conferences. The schools in
the Pac Ten have not been a part of the NCAA any longer than the vast majority
of schools that they are being compared with.
Do you have a reason why this is the case? I have given the reason as being
that the Pac Ten puts more emphasis, historically, on athletics, than other
schools in other conferences. You have stated that Money and time are not what
make a good athletic program. Im still eagerly awaiting the reasons you think
a school gets good at athletics.
>Incorrect; the Big XII has existed for hundreds of years. You have to be
>consistent in the way you count championships and the way you count
>existence.
Im sorry..I am not the one counting championships--the NCAA is. If you have a
gripe with the way they count take it up with them.
Now why has the Big 12 existed for hundreds of years now?
>But not necessarily as Division I. Or do you also intend to count a
>Division I championship equivalently to a Division II championship?
>
The VAST majority of teams that are in Division one BIG SIX conferences have
been "Division One" for as long as the NCAA has been around. Dont give me your
"Prove it" crap. Its true. The only conference that might have a gripe here
is the Big East as a couple of their basketball programs could have been lower
division before the conference was formed. If you take their football schools,
then they have all been upper division schools for as long as they have had
athletic programs. The teams that are being discussed here are not Morgan
State or Hampton...they are the biggest and longest lasting athletic programs.
>> Those twelve schools have ammassed 147 National titles.
>
>And hundreds of years of existence. As I said, count consistently.
>
You are losing the ability to make any sense at all
>> Why have they won less than half of what the Pac Ten schools have won?
>
>You're presupposing that they've won less than half.
Im not--the NCAA is--Do you have anything to dispute that?
>> And the Pac Ten teams are not older or been involved in athletics longer
>> than the Big East Teams.
>
>Evidence, please. (Of course, your claim extended beyond just the Pac 10 and
>Big East.)
>
Are you serious here? Or just trolling. Oregon is not older than Boston
College. But NONE of that matters since all that is being counted is the
number of NCAA sanctioned titles. All of the schools that are in the Big Six
conferences have been playing sports since the NCAA came into existance.
>
>> Sorry.
>
>For what?
>
That someone as slow and pedantic as you has been inflicted on your famly and
acquaintances, and this newsgroup.
>> Well...jesus. Its like talking to a special ed student here.
>
>Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
Yes...like the logical argument that THE PAC TEN SCHOOLS HAVE WON MORE NCAA
SANCTIONED NATIONAL TITLES BY A LARGE AMOUNT THAN ANY OTHER GROUP OF SCHOOLS
THAT LIKE TO BE CALLED CONFERENCES..
the second you can refute that statement, you go ahead and do it.
>> My substantiation is that Oregon is creditied with winning 13
>> NCAA titles and Nebraska is credited with winning 12.
>
>Evidence, please. You already admitted to ignoring football. How
>convenient for you.
>
The NCAA does not sacntion a champion in football. What more evidence do you
need? I have said that from the first post. Can even you understand that 13
is a greater number than 12?
>
>> I gave the link to the NCA's site in my first post,
>
>I'm not interested in an "NCA" site.
>
The only interest you seem to have is giving yourself typing
practice,.....since you ignore anything anyone else says.
>But it won't tell you anything about the quality of the athletic
>program. For example, which school has the better athletic program,
It will tell you who won the most titles in all the NCAA sports. The only
barometer of quality we have in sports is who wins and who loses. Its why they
keep score.
>But it won't tell you anything about the quality of the athletic
>program. For example, which school has the better athletic program,
>one that finishes as the runner-up in every sport, but with ZERO
>championships, or one that managed to win ONE championship but is
>an also-ran in all other sports? Yet another very basic flaw in
>your analysis.
>
here is the basic flaw in all your posts. It was not an "Analysis"
I pointed out that the Pac Ten Schools have a lot more NCAA Championships than
any other conference of schools. You cannot refute that fact. So you have
decided to make it an "Analysis"
>> Maybe you can get someone to help you do this.
>
>Why would I want to repeat an analysis using your flawed methods?
What was flawed? Oh yeah..it wasnt an "Analysis"
>
>> Dont forget, if a number is "Higher" that means more. Okay?
>
>Don't forget, if a number is "higher", that doesn't mean "better".
It does is SPORTS.....
>http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html
>
>That link doesn't have anything to do with the "NCA" you referred to
>above.
Pedantic..cant come up with anything to actually say--so you attack typos.
>> The teams within the Pac Ten have won 314 recognized NCAA titles.
>
>Which is hardly a measure of athletic program quality. Over how many
>years were those titles earned?
Ummm..since the NCAA started counting them.
>
>> The Pac Ten has 10 member schools.
>
>Well, at least the conference knows how to count.
>
>> The Big Ten schools are second.
>
>There's a conference that doesn't know how to count.
>
>> (And dont forget, the Big Ten has, yes, 11 members)
>
>Amazing! You know how to count!
>
which is even funnier,,since you apparently do not.
>
>> and between them they have 187 recognized national titles.
>
>Which is hardly a measure of athletic program quality. Over how many
>years were those titles earned?
>
Where did you come up with this "Athletic Program Wuality" crap? Where have I
ever said that? What does it have to do with any of this?
>
>> That is an "Extreme edge"
>
>Not in quality of athletic program.
What? So winning a lot of different titles in a lot of differenst sports means
nothing?
>> conference?
>
>You really are stuck in the mud. The issue here is quality of program,
>not number of championships.
>
Since when? YOU made it that..I was pointing out that the Pac Ten schools have
a lot more titles than any other conferense. For some reason you are unable to
grasp that.
>
>How about competing in sports with fewer competing schools? That also
>increases the odds. Yet another problem with your analysis.
>
How about the fact that the Pac Ten plays more sports. means that the athletic
programs are of a higher quality? (Just to go back to your made up "Quality of
athletic program" argument" ) Thank you for that.
>>> Time and money do not necessarily make a better athletic program.
>
>> HAHAHAH..What do you think does it?
>
>Good people.
Good people go to where the time and money are.
>
>> Magic pixies coming around and giving the teams a competitive edge?
>
>Illogical.
Uh huh--you should understand that very well.
>
>> I would love to hear your ideas on what can create a
>> good athletic program.
>
>See above.
Well..good people go to the schools that can cater to their needs the best.
The schools that can cater to the teams the best are the ones that put the time
and the money into a program. You are looking at it backwards.
>> Ummm...well. Do I really have to explain how the concepts of numbers
>works?
>
>No, but you do have to explain how the concepts of your analysis work.
Well..I looked at all the schools in the big six conferences, and counted up
the number of national titles those schools had won. I dont see how that is
an analysis. But you keep working on that.
>
>> Count them yourself.
>
>Why should I repeat a flawed analysis?
>
I know--it would require you taking off your shoes.
>> I have done so numerous times,
>
>Probably because you have to keep reinforcing your weak position that
>quality is somehow connected to championships.
>
It actually is.....sports is pretty simple..You keep score by who wins. Maybe
you would feel more at home in the
>
>> but you dont seem to want to accept those numbers.
>
>Very good! Now, when will you admit that 10 second-place finishes
>means a better program than 1 championship and a bunch of also-rans?
>
yeah sure..when you come up with concrete examples of schools that have done
this very thing. I have concrete proof of the teams that have finished first.
You show me the teams that have finished second 10 times, and the school that
has finished first once. The extend that out to a conference level. Go
ahead...talk is cheap.
You are coming up with outlandish scenarios..back it up.
And dont forget...you have to do it for all teams in all conferences.
Dick Sidbury
OK, lets have the following argument (discussion). Pick 6 men's sports
and 4 women's sports (or any other combination that has a consensus)
that are likely to be popular in most conferences and count up "power".
As a starting point, we can define power as "national championships" but
I for one, am quite willing to use another metric if someone can
suggest a reasonable metric.
I'll start the ball rolling by nominating football, baseball and men's
and women's basketball, the easy and obvious choices. What else do we
include?
dick
ConnMoore
>I'll start the ball rolling by nominating football, baseball and men's
>and women's basketball, the easy and obvious choices. What else do we
>include?
Okay..ill play.
Swimming, Golf and Tennis usually have mens and womens programs. Could just
use those three
using football is still a slippery slope, because the NCAA does not crown a
champion, and there are plenty of years where you have more than one polled
champion. But if that is what people want..works for me. I just hate having a
vote for a national title.
Thats another argument though.
jim andrews
conn...@aol.com says...
> >Subject: Re: Some facts about what is the best overall sports conference
> >From: Dick Sidbury sid...@adelphia.net
>
> >I'll start the ball rolling by nominating football, baseball and men's
> >and women's basketball, the easy and obvious choices. What else do we
> >include?
>
>
>
> Okay..ill play.
>
> Swimming, Golf and Tennis usually have mens and womens programs. Could just
> use those three
I'd add wrestling and women's volleyball.
Maybe gymnastics (women only or men too?).
Soccer?
Women's softball?
I'm not terribly up to speed on the overall level
of participation in all of these sports, but I bet
most schools have at *least* a women's volleyball
team. Maybe not.
jim andrews
Daniel Seriff
>> When comparing two conferences on an overall level, including titles in
>> sports that one conference doesn't participate in is disingenuous at best.
>
> this is a great point, and one that is going to be pretty tough to get past.
> What brought up the entire thread was the idea that the Big 12 was the
> "Overall best sports conference" in the country.
>
> Unfortunately participating in sports is required to be the best overall.
Not really. Just participating isn't enough. You actually have to play other
people. If you're good at sports that nobody else participates in, you can't
include those sports in your statistics and come up with a fair comparison.
This is like saying that I'm the overall best chef in my apartment, and
ignoring the fact that I live alone. It may be a truthful statement, but it
doesn't actually mean anything.
If you want to compare two conferences, the *only* fair way to do so is to
eliminate the sports that only one of the conferences participates in.
Otherwise you've got skewed data, and your comparison goes out the window.
> Part of what makes the Pac Ten so impressive is they participate in a lot of
> sports, and they do so early on. Eventually the other conferences catch on
> and begin catching up, but this doesnt change the fact that the Pac Ten
> usually has a big head start.
> Now if you want to go on a sport by sport basis, that would be fun. I would
> love to see the results.
The only data I've got off the top of my head is this season's combined
football/basketball record between Big 12 schools and Pac-10 schools (not
including games that haven't been played yet, obviously). The Big 12 is 13-7
over the Pac-10. IIRC, the breakdown is that in basketball (men's and
women's) it's 6-4 in favor of the Big 12 (men: 4-2, women: 2-2), and in
football it's 7-3.
As of next week, the best case scenario is 16-7, the worst case is 13-10.
Either way, the Big 12 still comes out above 500.
Ultimately, the win-loss ratio is the only statistic that's really
important.
Daniel Seriff
> Its not an "Invective" if it is true. You ARE dense. Its not meant as an
> insult, its meant as an observation. You do not understand simple concepts
> very well at all.
A piece of advice: there is absolutely no point in arguing with Tholen. It's
kind of like arguing with a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. He probably
thinks he's being very clever, but he's really just obnoxious.
The last extended "conversation" I had with Tholen was one of the more
surreal experiences I've ever had.
> You show me the teams that have finished second 10 times, and the school that
> has finished first once.
He doesn't have to. The hypothetical is sound enough (shudder, I agreed with
Tholen). A team that consistently places second over a long span of time is
usually better than a team that places first once.
ConnMoore
>over the Pac-10. IIRC, the breakdown is that in basketball (men's and
>women's) it's 6-4 in favor of the Big 12 (men: 4-2, women: 2-2), and in
>football it's 7-3.
I have no idea about the Basketball totals. But there is no way the Football
totals are right. I can only think of a couple of regular season games the Pac
Ten and Big 12 played last year
UCLA beat Kansas
Kansas St beat USC
Texas beat Washington in the Holiday Bowl
Oregon beat Colorado in the Fiesta.
thats 2-2
Are you going back more than last season?
ConnMoore
>From: Daniel Seriff micro...@sericap.com
>A piece of advice: there is absolutely no point in arguing with Tholen. It's
>kind of like arguing with a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. He probably
>thinks he's being very clever, but he's really just obnoxious.
>
>The last extended "conversation" I had with Tholen was one of the more
>surreal experiences I've ever had.
Thank you. I owe you.
tho...@antispam.ham
> ConnMoore wrote:
>> Its not an "Invective" if it is true. You ARE dense. Its not meant as an
>> insult, its meant as an observation. You do not understand simple concepts
>> very well at all.
> A piece of advice: there is absolutely no point in arguing with Tholen.
Especially when one doesn't have a logical argument to use, as in the
case of ConnMoore.
> It's kind of like arguing with a right-wing Christian fundamentalist.
Classic inappropriate analogy. This isn't a religious argument.
> He probably thinks he's being very clever,
What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
> but he's really just obnoxious.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. I'm not the one making
the ridiculous claim about quality being measured by championships,
Seriff.
> The last extended "conversation" I had with Tholen was one of the more
> surreal experiences I've ever had.
What was surreal about your extended antagonistic postings, Seriff?
>> You show me the teams that have finished second 10 times, and the school that
>> has finished first once.
> He doesn't have to. The hypothetical is sound enough (shudder, I agreed with
> Tholen).
Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
> A team that consistently places second over a long span of time is
> usually better than a team that places first once.
And that's just one of many problems with ConnMoore's argument.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> A piece of advice: there is absolutely no point in arguing with Tholen. It's
>> kind of like arguing with a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. He probably
>> thinks he's being very clever, but he's really just obnoxious.
>>
>> The last extended "conversation" I had with Tholen was one of the more
>> surreal experiences I've ever had.
> Thank you. I owe you.
For what? Seriff agreed with me that your analysis is flawed in at least
one way.
Daniel Seriff
>> over the Pac-10. IIRC, the breakdown is that in basketball (men's and
>> women's) it's 6-4 in favor of the Big 12 (men: 4-2, women: 2-2), and in
>> football it's 7-3.
>
> I have no idea about the Basketball totals. But there is no way the Football
> totals are right. I can only think of a couple of regular season games the
> Pac Ten and Big 12 played last year
>
> UCLA beat Kansas
> Kansas St beat USC
> Texas beat Washington in the Holiday Bowl
> Oregon beat Colorado in the Fiesta.
>
> thats 2-2
>
> Are you going back more than last season?
Whoops. You're absolutely right. Football was 2-2, women's basketball was
7-3. I transposed them accidentally.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Suffering from reading comprehension problems? I gave three reasons,
>> and I've got more.
> As I said--and others have tried to point out
Who are these alleged others?
> to your rather limited ability to understand...
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> you did not give any reasons.
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems? I've given
several reasons. You've simply failed to comprehend them.
>>> does that mean you are wrong?
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I gave no real reasons.
> You gave no reasons---
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems? I've given
several reasons. You've simply failed to comprehend them.
> it is not erroneous.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> No...you are actually dense.
>> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> Its not an "Invective" if it is true.
The key word here is "if". First of all, it's not true. Second of all,
it's still invective regardless of its truth value.
> You ARE dense.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> Its not meant as an insult,
Then why use it?
> its meant as an observation.
There are other ways to express an observation (erroneous as it is)
without resorting to invective.
> You do not understand simple concepts very well at all.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming
from someone who hasn't yet understood several simple concepts at all.
>>> You just cant seem to grasp concpts very well
>> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> it pertains to this argument
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say it doesn't pertain to this argument.
I said it was invective, which you would realize by now if you had better
reading comprehension skills.
> because I have to keep explaing things that any
> normal human being would understand the first time.
I understood them the first time, which is why I knew how ridiculous
your analysis has been.
> It makes these posts tedious and boring,
If you find them so tedious and boring, then why bother making them?
> becuase I seriously feel like a am coorosponding with a
> special ed student.
What you feel is irrelevant, but it is rather ironic, considering how
much difficulty you've had comprehending the problems with your
analysis, coupled with your ongoing spelling problems (such as
"coorosponding" and "becuase").
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't grasped the concpts [sic]
>> very well. But that's rather ironic, coming from the person who hasn't
>> grasped the problems with his analysis very well.
> You obviously have not grasped it because you keep asking idiotic questions
> that have been answered in previous posts.
What allegedly "idiotic questions" have I asked that have already been
answered? Care to substantiate your claims?
>>>> I thought you were counting championships, not team
>>> Yes..TEAMS win championships.
>> Non sequitur. Counting championships is not the same as counting teams
>> within the conference.
> Does this still make sense to you, after you have looked at it again?
Now that you've stripped away your inconsistent statement, you've
destroyed the context. How convenient for you.
>>> They happen to be in conferences.
>> Still doesn't change the fact that counting championships is not the same
>> as counting teams within the conference.
> What the hell are you talking about?
I'm talking about what you wrote. Of course, you chose to remove what
you wrote from your follow-up, to hide your reference to counting teams.
>>> Its pretty easy to count up the number of NCAA championships teams in
>>> a conference have won.
>> Which is rather different from counting up teams within the conference,
>> which is what you stated above.
> Okay..lets keep it simple then...
Is the removal of evidence your idea of keeping it simple?
> The Pac Ten as a group of teams, has almost twice as many titles as any other
> group of teams that have affiliated themselves as conferences.
First of all, the number of titles is NOT a measure of quality of program.
Why do you have such difficulty understanding such a simple concept?
Yet another problem with your analysis is the inclusion of "titles" that
are associated with a different organization. Take UCLA, for example. You
took their 18 titles in mens volleyball and included them in the total for
the Pac 10. Yet when it comes to mens volleyball, UCLA competes in the
Mountain Pacific Sports Federation, in a division that includes Pepperdine,
Brigham Young, and UC Irvine. So why are you counting MPSF titles toward
the Pac 10 total???
> The schools in the Pac Ten have not been a part of the NCAA any longer than
> the vast majority of schools that they are being compared with.
Evidence, please.
> Do you have a reason why this is the case?
I don't need a reason, given that I'm not making the claim. However,
you are making a claim, therefore you need to provide the substantiation.
> I have given the reason as being that the Pac Ten puts more emphasis,
> historically, on athletics, than other schools in other conferences.
What you haven't given is the substantiation for that claim.
> You have stated that Money and time are not what
> make a good athletic program.
With good reason. I've witnessed programs that spend huge sums of money
and still not win any titles, which happens to be your measure of quality.
> Im still eagerly awaiting the reasons you think
> a school gets good at athletics.
I already gave a reason. Still suffering from reading comprehension
problems?
>> Incorrect; the Big XII has existed for hundreds of years. You have to be
>> consistent in the way you count championships and the way you count
>> existence.
> Im sorry..I am not the one counting championships--the NCAA is.
The NCAA hasn't added titles for members schools and posted the results
here. You have.
> If you have a gripe with the way they count take it up with them.
I have a gripe with the way you determine quality of program, so I'm
taking it up with you.
> Now why has the Big 12 existed for hundreds of years now?
Simple: add the number of years each member school has been competing.
You can add, can't you?
>> But not necessarily as Division I. Or do you also intend to count a
>> Division I championship equivalently to a Division II championship?
> The VAST majority of teams that are in Division one BIG SIX conferences have
> been "Division One" for as long as the NCAA has been around.
Evidence, please.
> Dont give me your "Prove it" crap.
On what basis do you call a request for evidence "crap"?
> Its true.
It's pontification.
> The only conference that might have a gripe here is the Big East as a
> couple of their basketball programs could have been lower division
> before the conference was formed.
Irrelevant, given that no conference is griping here.
> If you take their football schools,
Would that include Notre Dame or not? After all, you did include UCLA
mens volleyball titles in the Pac 10 total. Do try to be consistent.
> then they have all been upper division schools for as long as they have had
> athletic programs.
Evidence, please.
> The teams that are being discussed here are not Morgan State or Hampton...
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they are being discussed here.
Nevertheless, since the issue is the best conference, why exclude
them?
> they are the biggest and longest lasting athletic programs.
Oh, so now you're measuring quality by size and length of existence?
>>> Those twelve schools have ammassed 147 National titles.
>> And hundreds of years of existence. As I said, count consistently.
> You are losing the ability to make any sense at all
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The real problem is
your inability to comprehend simple concepts.
>>> Why have they won less than half of what the Pac Ten schools have won?
>> You're presupposing that they've won less than half.
> Im not--
Incorrect.
> the NCAA is--
The NCAA hasn't added titles for members schools and posted the results
here. You have.
> Do you have anything to dispute that?
Yes, namely your inclusion of 18 mens volleyball titles in the Pac 10
total, despite the fact that UCLA competes in the MPSF when it comes
to mens volleyball.
>>> And the Pac Ten teams are not older or been involved in athletics longer
>>> than the Big East Teams.
>> Evidence, please. (Of course, your claim extended beyond just the Pac 10 and
>> Big East.)
> Are you serious here?
I'm quite serious.
> Or just trolling.
Illogical, given that I'm not the one who started the discussion or
made the claim. Trolls start such discussions and make outrageous
claims (such as yours) with the intent of triggering reaction. In
other words, you're the troll here.
> Oregon is not older than Boston College.
Irrelevant, given that I never claimed otherwise.
> But NONE of that matters
Glad you agree that it's irrelevant, so why bring it up?
> since all that is being counted is the number of NCAA sanctioned titles.
Which is a ridiculous way to measure the quality of a conference.
> All of the schools that are in the Big Six conferences have been
> playing sports since the NCAA came into existance.
But not all sports. Indeed, providing equal opportunity for women is
a rather recent development when compared to the formation of the NCAA.
>>> Sorry.
>> For what?
> That someone as slow and pedantic as you
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> has been inflicted on your famly and acquaintances, and this newsgroup.
What is a "famly"?
>>> Well...jesus. Its like talking to a special ed student here.
>> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> Yes...like the logical argument that THE PAC TEN SCHOOLS HAVE WON MORE NCAA
> SANCTIONED NATIONAL TITLES BY A LARGE AMOUNT THAN ANY OTHER GROUP OF SCHOOLS
> THAT LIKE TO BE CALLED CONFERENCES..
Where is the logic in that argument? First of all, you're counting MPSF
titles in mens volleyball earned by UCLA as part of the Pac 10 total.
Second of all, titles are not a measure of the quality of a conference.
How many times do I need to repeat that before it sinks in?
> the second you can refute that statement, you go ahead and do it.
I already have. The second you can comprehend it, you'll realize what
a fool you've been.
>>> My substantiation is that Oregon is creditied with winning 13
>>> NCAA titles and Nebraska is credited with winning 12.
>> Evidence, please. You already admitted to ignoring football. How
>> convenient for you.
> The NCAA does not sacntion a champion in football.
So what? The issue here is best conference. To ignore football is to
ignore the one sport that usually provides the greatest income that
allows an atheltic program to maintain non-revenue sports, and you've
counted titles in a lot of non-revenue sports as part of your totals.
> What more evidence do you need?
I do not need any evidence that the NCAA does not sacntion [sic] a
champion in football. I do need evidence that football can be safely
ignored when it comes to measuring "best" conference.
> I have said that from the first post.
Saying it and justifying your exclusion are two entirely different
things.
> Can even you understand that 13 is a greater number than 12?
Non sequitur. The issue here is your exclusion of football from
your metric for determing "best" conference.
>>> I gave the link to the NCA's site in my first post,
>> I'm not interested in an "NCA" site.
> The only interest you seem to have is giving yourself typing
> practice,
I don't need typing practice, though you obviously do. Is that why
you posted such a ridiculous claim?
> .....since you ignore anything anyone else says.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. On the contrary, I've
been paying close attention to what you have said, which is why I
know it's so ridiculous.
>> But it won't tell you anything about the quality of the athletic
>> program. For example, which school has the better athletic program,
> It will tell you who won the most titles in all the NCAA sports.
Irrelevant, given that the issue isn't the most titles.
> The only barometer of quality we have in sports is who wins and who
> loses.
But you didn't add wins and losses to reach your conclusion. Rather,
you counted titles only. Using your ridiculous metric, one would be
forced to conclude that Denver has a better athletic program than
Kansas State, simply because Denver has several titles in skiing.
Meanwhile, Kansas State has no titles at all. I doubt they even have
a ski team. Indeed, your ridiculous metric could allow a school with
a single dominant sport (such as skiing) with a single title to have a
"better" program than a school that offer all sports, but no titles.
Where is the logic in that?
> Its why they keep score.
It's not to determine which conference is "best".
>> But it won't tell you anything about the quality of the athletic
>> program. For example, which school has the better athletic program,
>> one that finishes as the runner-up in every sport, but with ZERO
>> championships, or one that managed to win ONE championship but is
>> an also-ran in all other sports? Yet another very basic flaw in
>> your analysis.
> here is the basic flaw in all your posts.
You're erroneously presupposing that there has been a basic flaw in
any of my posts.
> It was not an "Analysis"
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> I pointed out that the Pac Ten Schools have a lot more NCAA Championships
> than any other conference of schools.
In response to a thread about "best" conference. You used your analysis
(despite your semantic argument to call it something else) to conclude
that the Pac 10 is best.
> You cannot refute that fact.
I can refute your statistics, considering how you counted UCLA's 18
titles in mens volleyball as part of the Pac 10 total, despite the
fact that UCLA competes in the MPSF in mens volleyball.
> So you have decided to make it an "Analysis"
It has nothing to do with any decision on my part. It's merely the
correct description for what you did.
>>> Maybe you can get someone to help you do this.
>> Why would I want to repeat an analysis using your flawed methods?
> What was flawed?
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems? I already posted
five numbered problems, and have mentioned some others that weren't
explicitly numbered.
> Oh yeah..it wasnt an "Analysis"
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. A semantic argument won't
help you.
>>> Dont forget, if a number is "Higher" that means more. Okay?
>> Don't forget, if a number is "higher", that doesn't mean "better".
> It does is SPORTS.....
Tell that to Tiger Woods.
>> http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html
>>
>> That link doesn't have anything to do with the "NCA" you referred to
>> above.
> Pedantic..cant come up with anything to actually say--
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems? I've come up with
plenty to actually say.
> so you attack typos.
How ironic, coming from someone attacking my intelligence.
>>> The teams within the Pac Ten have won 314 recognized NCAA titles.
>> Which is hardly a measure of athletic program quality. Over how many
>> years were those titles earned?
> Ummm..since the NCAA started counting them.
Classic evasion.
>>> The Pac Ten has 10 member schools.
>> Well, at least the conference knows how to count.
>>> The Big Ten schools are second.
>> There's a conference that doesn't know how to count.
>>> (And dont forget, the Big Ten has, yes, 11 members)
>> Amazing! You know how to count!
> which is even funnier,,since you apparently do not.
What appears to you is irrelevant. But we now have evidence that
you're hallucinating, because it should appear to you that I do
know how to count.
>>> and between them they have 187 recognized national titles.
>> Which is hardly a measure of athletic program quality. Over how many
>> years were those titles earned?
> Where did you come up with this "Athletic Program Wuality" crap?
Non sequitur, given that I didn't come up with any "Athletic Program
Wuality", nor did I come up with any crap. As for who came up with
the "best" overall sports conference business, that was you. Suffering
from short term memory problems?
> Where have I ever said that?
Irrelevant, given that I never said that you did say anything about
"Athletic Program Wuality". You did, however, say something about
"best overall sports conference".
> What does it have to do with any of this?
Left as an exercise for the reader.
>>> That is an "Extreme edge"
>> Not in quality of athletic program.
> What?
Not in quality of athletic program. Still suffering from reading
comprehension problems?
> So winning a lot of different titles in a lot of differenst sports
> means nothing?
No, but it also doesn't mean everything, which is how you're trying
to treat them.
>>> conference?
>> You really are stuck in the mud. The issue here is quality of program,
>> not number of championships.
> Since when?
Since today:
] From: conn...@aol.com (ConnMoore)
] Date: 20 Mar 2002 03:28:34 GMT
] Subject: Some facts about what is the best overall sports conference
> YOU made it that..
Balderdash. You started the thread and gave it a subject line about
"best overall sport conference".
> I was pointing out that the Pac Ten schools have a lot more titles
> than any other conferense.
And tried to use that to substantiate a claim that the Pac 10 is the
best overall sports conference.
> For some reason you are unable to grasp that.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. On the contrary, I was
able to grasp your point and how you foolishly tried to apply it to
the subject.
>> How about competing in sports with fewer competing schools? That also
>> increases the odds. Yet another problem with your analysis.
> How about the fact that the Pac Ten plays more sports.
On what basis do you call it a "fact"?
> means that the athletic programs are of a higher quality?
Not necessarily. Spreading the money out over more sports can dilute
things.
> (Just to go back to your made up "Quality of
> athletic program" argument" )
You're erroneously presupposing that I made up any argument here.
> Thank you for that.
For what? Identifying the problems with your analysis?
>>>> Time and money do not necessarily make a better athletic program.
>>> HAHAHAH..What do you think does it?
>> Good people.
> Good people go to where the time and money are.
Not necessarily. However, I would like to take this opportunity to
point out that I did give a reason. You just responded to my reason.
Yet for some reason, you claimed that I hadn't provided any reason:
] You have stated that Money and time are not what make a good athletic
] program. Im still eagerly awaiting the reasons you think a school gets
] good at athletics.
So, you were obviously lying when you said that you're still eagerly
awaiting the reasons.
>>> Magic pixies coming around and giving the teams a competitive edge?
>> Illogical.
> Uh huh--you should understand that very well.
I do understand quite well the illogic of your response.
>>> I would love to hear your ideas on what can create a
>>> good athletic program.
>> See above.
> Well..good people go to the schools that can cater to their needs
> the best.
Not necessarily.
> The schools that can cater to the teams the best are the ones that put
> the time and the money into a program. You are looking at it backwards.
Balderdash. Why do you think so many coaches get fired at big-name
schools? The schools spent the money and gave the coach the time,
but they didn't produce the desired results.
>>> Ummm...well. Do I really have to explain how the concepts of numbers
>>> works?
>> No, but you do have to explain how the concepts of your analysis work.
> Well..I looked at all the schools in the big six conferences, and counted up
> the number of national titles those schools had won.
Which is a ridiculous metric to use as a measure of "best overall sports
conference". Add to that the fact that you added wrong, as noted with
regard to the 18 mens volleyball titles you counted toward the Pac 10.
> I dont see how that is an analysis.
That's your problem, not mine.
> But you keep working on that.
I'm not the one who needs to keep working on it.
>>> Count them yourself.
>> Why should I repeat a flawed analysis?
> I know--it would require you taking off your shoes.
Illogical; how are shoes related to your flawed analysis?
>>> I have done so numerous times,
>> Probably because you have to keep reinforcing your weak position that
>> quality is somehow connected to championships.
> It actually is.....
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> sports is pretty simple..You keep score by who wins.
But you didn't add up all the wins. Rather, you restricted yourself
to just titles, which is a ridiculous metric to use.
> Maybe you would feel more at home in the
In the what?
>>> but you dont seem to want to accept those numbers.
>> Very good! Now, when will you admit that 10 second-place finishes
>> means a better program than 1 championship and a bunch of also-rans?
> yeah sure..when you come up with concrete examples of schools that have done
> this very thing.
I don't need to. You've proposed a method to determine the "best overall
sports conference", and I've explained why your metric is ridiculous.
Indiana has more basketball titles than Kansas, but Kansas has more overall
wins. Which is the better basketball school?
> I have concrete proof of the teams that have finished first.
Irrelevant, given that the issue is "best overall sports conference".
The number of times a team finishing first doesn't dictate which
conference is best overall.
> You show me the teams that have finished second 10 times,
> and the school that has finished first once.
I don't need to. You've proposed a method to determine the "best overall
sports conference", and I've explained why your metric is ridiculous.
Indiana has more basketball titles than Kansas, but Kansas has more overall
wins. Which is the better basketball school?
> The extend that out to a conference level.
I don't need to.
> Go ahead...talk is cheap.
Which explains why you've relied on it so heavily.
> You are coming up with outlandish scenarios..
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> back it up.
See above.
> And dont forget...you have to do it for all teams in all conferences.
Why? You didn't.
Daniel Seriff
OK, I'll collect. You have to admit that the Big 12 is, always was, and
always will be the best overall athletic conference.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. ;)
Go Texas!
Daniel Seriff
> >> Its not an "Invective" if it is true. You ARE dense. Its not meant as an
> >> insult, its meant as an observation. You do not understand simple concepts
> >> very well at all.
>
> > A piece of advice: there is absolutely no point in arguing with Tholen.
>
> Especially when one doesn't have a logical argument to use, as in the
> case of ConnMoore.
Irrelevant. There is no point in arguing with you regardless of the
soundness or logicality of one's argument. In all your posts that I've
seen over the past year or so, I have yet to see you concede a point,
even when it was correct and supported.
> > It's kind of like arguing with a right-wing Christian fundamentalist.
>
> Classic inappropriate analogy.
I can conclude two things from this statement:
a) You've never had an argument with a Christian fundamentalist
b) You are unaware of how your own style of argument comes across to
others
> This isn't a religious argument.
Irrelevant, given that I never claimed it was.
> > He probably thinks he's being very clever,
>
> What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
What you think I think you think is irrelevant, Tholen.
> > but he's really just obnoxious.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Opinions one holds of others need no substantiation, and cannot be
erroneous, by definition.
> I'm not the one making
> the ridiculous claim about quality being measured by championships,
> Seriff.
Who is making what claim is irrelevant to whether or not you are
obnoxious.
> > The last extended "conversation" I had with Tholen was one of the more
> > surreal experiences I've ever had.
>
> What was surreal about your extended antagonistic postings, Seriff?
For one thing, that you believed everyone's postings but your own to
be antagonistic. You participate in flame wars just as much, if not
more, than anyone you accuse of being antagonistic.
The best method of self-defense is to run away (or so my many years of
martial arts training tells me). The usenet equivalent would be to
avoid responding to people you consider to be antagonistic. Your
voluminous postings over the years (which are easily accessable on
Google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny their
existence) would indicate that you have not taken this more prudent
course of action.
Perhaps you just thrive on confrontation.
> >> You show me the teams that have finished second 10 times, and the school that
> >> has finished first once.
>
> > He doesn't have to. The hypothetical is sound enough (shudder, I agreed with
> > Tholen).
>
> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
Whether or not the argument is sound is irrelevant. I shuddered
because I agreed with you. I don't really like you, so agreeing with
you is slightly annoying to me.
> > A team that consistently places second over a long span of time is
> > usually better than a team that places first once.
>
> And that's just one of many problems with ConnMoore's argument.
I'm still not convinced that one can come up with an "overall"
comparison of conferences that isn't wildly subjective and/or based on
faulty assumptions. Conferences are made up of teams, any of which
might be good or bad at a given sport. The only meaningful comparsions
are between individual teams in a single sport.
Dan
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>> Its not an "Invective" if it is true. You ARE dense. Its not meant as an
>>>> insult, its meant as an observation. You do not understand simple concepts
>>>> very well at all.
>>> A piece of advice: there is absolutely no point in arguing with Tholen.
>> Especially when one doesn't have a logical argument to use, as in the
>> case of ConnMoore.
> Irrelevant.
On the contrary, it's quite relevant to your recommendation, Seriff.
> There is no point in arguing with you regardless of the
> soundness or logicality of one's argument.
On the contrary, there is a point in arguing with me if you have
a logical argument, Seriff. ConnMoore doesn't have one, however.
Neither do you.
> In all your posts that I've seen over the past year or so, I have yet
> to see you concede a point, even when it was correct and supported.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Which "correct and
supported" point did I allegedly not concede, Seriff? Care to
substantiate your claim?
>>> It's kind of like arguing with a right-wing Christian fundamentalist.
>> Classic inappropriate analogy.
> I can conclude two things from this statement:
>
> a) You've never had an argument with a Christian fundamentalist
Strike one (namely an incorrect conclusion).
> b) You are unaware of how your own style of argument comes across to
> others
Strike two (namely an incorrect conclusion).
>> This isn't a religious argument.
> Irrelevant, given that I never claimed it was.
On the contrary, you tried to compare it to an argument with a
"right-wing Christian fundamentalist", Seriff.
>>> He probably thinks he's being very clever,
>> What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
> What you think I think you think is irrelevant, Tholen.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what I think
you think, Seriff.
>>> but he's really just obnoxious.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Opinions one holds of others need no substantiation,
They do need justification, Seriff.
> and cannot be erroneous, by definition.
Where is the alleged definition that allow such a situation, Seriff?
>> I'm not the one making the ridiculous claim about quality being
>> measured by championships, Seriff.
> Who is making what claim is irrelevant to whether or not you are
> obnoxious.
Who is making what claim is quite relevant to who is the real
obnoxious person here, Seriff.
>>> The last extended "conversation" I had with Tholen was one of the more
>>> surreal experiences I've ever had.
>> What was surreal about your extended antagonistic postings, Seriff?
> For one thing, that you believed everyone's postings but your own to
> be antagonistic.
Where did I allegedly indicate any such belief, Seriff?
> You participate in flame wars just as much, if not
> more, than anyone you accuse of being antagonistic.
Classic pontification. I see that you don't distinguish between
those who start "flame wars" and those who counter the misinformation
contained within them. I'm not surprised, coming from someone like
you.
> The best method of self-defense is to run away (or so my many years of
> martial arts training tells me).
So naturally you don't run away. But why do martial arts teachers
spend so much time on self-defense methods rather than on how to
run away?
> The usenet equivalent would be to avoid responding to people you
> consider to be antagonistic.
You're erroneously presupposing some equivalence here, Seriff.
> Your voluminous postings over the years (which are easily accessable
> on Google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny their
> existence)
Your voluminous antagonistic postings over the years (which are easily
accessible on google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny
their existence) indicate that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
> would indicate that you have not taken this more prudent course of
> action.
You're erroneously presupposing that not responding is the more prudent
course of action, Seriff. However, I'm not surprised that an antagonist
like you would try to convince the target of your antagonism to not
respond. People like you thrive on "winning", and getting the opponent
to not respond is interpreted by people like you as a "win".
> Perhaps you just thrive on confrontation.
Perhaps not, Seriff. That's an illogical conclusion, because someone
who thrives on confrontation would initiate such confrontations. Yet
the record shows that I'm not the one who starts such confrontations.
Rather, it's others, namely the antagonists like you, and in the
present case, ConnMoore.
>>>> You show me the teams that have finished second 10 times, and the school that
>>>> has finished first once.
>>> He doesn't have to. The hypothetical is sound enough (shudder, I agreed with
>>> Tholen).
>> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
> Whether or not the argument is sound is irrelevant.
On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Seriff, because you shuddered
at it.
> I shuddered because I agreed with you.
Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
> I don't really like you,
Because I stand up to antagonists like you, Seriff.
> so agreeing with you is slightly annoying to me.
Illogical, Seriff; you obviously can't separate your feelings toward
a person from your interest in a logical argument.
>>> A team that consistently places second over a long span of time is
>>> usually better than a team that places first once.
>> And that's just one of many problems with ConnMoore's argument.
> I'm still not convinced that one can come up with an "overall"
> comparison of conferences that isn't wildly subjective and/or based on
> faulty assumptions.
Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not the
one trying to come up with an overall comparison of conferences. I'm
simply countering ConnMoore's ridiculous notion that you can compare
conferences by counting titles.
> Conferences are made up of teams, any of which might be good or bad
> at a given sport. The only meaningful comparsions are between
> individual teams in a single sport.
Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not the
one trying to come up with an overall comparison of conferences.
James
news:20020320194826...@mb-mc.aol.com:
> Swimming, Golf and Tennis usually have mens and womens programs.
> Could just use those three
>
> using football is still a slippery slope, because the NCAA does not
> crown a champion, and there are plenty of years where you have more
> than one polled champion. But if that is what people want..works for
> me. I just hate having a vote for a national title.
Tennis also has multiple National Champions, as I found out when compiling
the list of defending champions earlier this week. The people inside the
sport seem to consider the doubles event more representative of the
national champion school, though.
ConnMoore
>Tennis also has multiple National Champions, as I found out when compiling
>the list of defending champions earlier this week. The people inside the
>sport seem to consider the doubles event more representative of the
>national champion school, though.
>
I know tennis has multiple individual champions, but dont they have an actual
team title each year too? If not, then that gives me even MORE reason to
dislike the NCAA.
Milt Epstein
Yes, the NCAA has a team title for tennis. It's just like a number of
other sports in this regard, where they have team and individual
titles (e.g. wrestling, gymnastics, track and field/cross country,
swimming and diving).
--
Milt Epstein
Computing and Communications Services Office (CCSO)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)
meps...@uiuc.edu
aubrey
been posted Bowling Green has dropped four mens` team sports so as to be
in compliance with federal guidelines concerning men/women sports.
Isn`t political correctness great?
ConnMoore
When Oregon had to get into compliance, they dropped Mens Baseball. It is
amazing how badly it hurts recruiting for football when you dont have a
baseball team.
Geoffrey F. Green
conn...@aol.com (ConnMoore) wrote:
> When Oregon had to get into compliance, they dropped Mens Baseball. It is
> amazing how badly it hurts recruiting for football when you dont have a
> baseball team.
Seriously?
ConnMoore
>Date: 3/21/2002 1:56 PM Pa
>> When Oregon had to get into compliance, they dropped Mens Baseball. It is
>> amazing how badly it hurts recruiting for football when you dont have a
>> baseball team.
>
>Seriously?
>
Yep---a lot of the two sports guys from basketball and football want to play
baseball in the spring. I know of a couple California recruits that mentioned
the lack of a baseball program as a reason they were not going to attend
Oregon. USC got two guys BECAUSE they have a top flight baseball
program....well that and the fact that they could stay in LA
Daniel Seriff
> >>>> Its not an "Invective" if it is true. You ARE dense. Its not meant as an
> >>>> insult, its meant as an observation. You do not understand simple concepts
> >>>> very well at all.
>
> >>> A piece of advice: there is absolutely no point in arguing with Tholen.
>
> >> Especially when one doesn't have a logical argument to use, as in the
> >> case of ConnMoore.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant to your recommendation, Seriff.
No it isn't. My recommendation had nothing to do with the qualities of
ConnMoore's arguments.
> > There is no point in arguing with you regardless of the
> > soundness or logicality of one's argument.
>
> On the contrary, there is a point in arguing with me if you have
> a logical argument, Seriff.
No, there really isn't.
> ConnMoore doesn't have one, however.
I won't speak for his argument.
> Neither do you.
You're erroneously presupposing that one is necessary.
> > In all your posts that I've seen over the past year or so, I have yet
> > to see you concede a point, even when it was correct and supported.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Which "correct and
> supported" point did I allegedly not concede, Seriff? Care to
> substantiate your claim?
The definition of "valid" comes to mind.
> >>> It's kind of like arguing with a right-wing Christian fundamentalist.
>
> >> Classic inappropriate analogy.
>
> > I can conclude two things from this statement:
> >
> > a) You've never had an argument with a Christian fundamentalist
>
> Strike one (namely an incorrect conclusion).
Unsubstantiated claim.
> > b) You are unaware of how your own style of argument comes across to
> > others
>
> Strike two (namely an incorrect conclusion).
Unsubstantiated claim.
> >> This isn't a religious argument.
>
> > Irrelevant, given that I never claimed it was.
>
> On the contrary, you tried to compare it to an argument with a
> "right-wing Christian fundamentalist", Seriff.
You're erroneously presupposing that such a comparison requires an
equivalency of subject matter.
> >>> He probably thinks he's being very clever,
>
> >> What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
I should note that this statement is actually irrelevant, given that I
didn't say anything about what I think you think.
> > What you think I think you think is irrelevant, Tholen.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what I think
> you think, Seriff.
Good, because what you think I think is irrelevant, Tholen. And that
includes what you think I think you think.
> >>> but he's really just obnoxious.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Opinions one holds of others need no substantiation,
>
> They do need justification, Seriff.
No, they don't.
> > and cannot be erroneous, by definition.
>
> Where is the alleged definition that allow such a situation, Seriff?
If you can prove that my opinion that you are obnoxious is incorrect,
I will happily concede that no such definition exists.
> >> I'm not the one making the ridiculous claim about quality being
> >> measured by championships, Seriff.
>
> > Who is making what claim is irrelevant to whether or not you are
> > obnoxious.
>
> Who is making what claim is quite relevant to who is the real
> obnoxious person here, Seriff.
Illogical. One's behaviour has little to do with the content of one's
claims.
> >>> The last extended "conversation" I had with Tholen was one of the more
> >>> surreal experiences I've ever had.
>
> >> What was surreal about your extended antagonistic postings, Seriff?
>
> > For one thing, that you believed everyone's postings but your own to
> > be antagonistic.
>
> Where did I allegedly indicate any such belief, Seriff?
You indicate it through your classic victim behaviour. Such an
indication does not need to be explicitly stated, it can be inferred
from your words.
> > You participate in flame wars just as much, if not
> > more, than anyone you accuse of being antagonistic.
>
> Classic pontification.
Unsupported claim. Your participation in flame wars is easily
verifiable by a Google search.
> I see that you don't distinguish between
> those who start "flame wars" and those who counter the misinformation
> contained within them.
What alleged misinformation are you referring to?
> I'm not surprised, coming from someone like you.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
> > The best method of self-defense is to run away (or so my many years of
> > martial arts training tells me).
>
> So naturally you don't run away.
Not from you. Implementation of self-defense presupposes a perception
of threat. I don't feel threatened by you.
> But why do martial arts teachers
> spend so much time on self-defense methods rather than on how to
> run away?
You try running away from someone who is pinning you to the ground and
punching you in the head. If you can't prevent such situations from
occuring, running away is a moot point.
Not all martial arts are primarily concerned with self-defense. Some,
if not most, martial arts schools in this country are sport/exercise
oriented.
The real self-defense teachers will teach you only to use your skills
to create a situation in which it is safe to run away without fear of
pursual.
> > The usenet equivalent would be to avoid responding to people you
> > consider to be antagonistic.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing some equivalence here, Seriff.
You're erroneously presupposing no equivalence, Tholen.
> > Your voluminous postings over the years (which are easily accessable
> > on Google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny their
> > existence)
>
> Your voluminous antagonistic postings over the years (which are easily
> accessible on google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny
> their existence) indicate that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
I don't deny that I've posted frequently to various groups. The
perception of antagonism is yours, and yours alone, however.
> > would indicate that you have not taken this more prudent course of
> > action.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that not responding is the more prudent
> course of action, Seriff.
You're erroneously presupposing that it isn't.
> However, I'm not surprised that an antagonist
> like you would try to convince the target of your antagonism to not
> respond.
Classic pontification, laced with invective.
> People like you thrive on "winning",
Classic pontification, laced with invective.
> and getting the opponent
> to not respond is interpreted by people like you as a "win".
Irrelevant. I am not concerned with "winning".
> > Perhaps you just thrive on confrontation.
>
> Perhaps not, Seriff. That's an illogical conclusion, because someone
> who thrives on confrontation would initiate such confrontations.
You're erroneously presupposing those who thrive on confrontation are
always the intiators.
> Yet
> the record shows that I'm not the one who starts such confrontations.
> Rather, it's others, namely the antagonists like you, and in the
> present case, ConnMoore.
Classic pontification, laced with invective.
> >>>> You show me the teams that have finished second 10 times, and the school that
> >>>> has finished first once.
>
> >>> He doesn't have to. The hypothetical is sound enough (shudder, I agreed with
> >>> Tholen).
>
> >> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
>
> > Whether or not the argument is sound is irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Seriff, because you shuddered
> at it.
You're erroneously presupposing that my shudder has anything to do
with whether or not your argument is sound.
> > I shuddered because I agreed with you.
>
> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
Non sequitur.
> > I don't really like you,
>
> Because I stand up to antagonists like you, Seriff.
No, because you don't understand how antagonistic and confrontational
you are yourself, and you accuse others of being antagonistic at the
drop of a hat. That's hypocrisy, and I don't particularly care for
hypocrites.
> > so agreeing with you is slightly annoying to me.
>
> Illogical, Seriff; you obviously can't separate your feelings toward
> a person from your interest in a logical argument.
Irrelevant. My feelings towards you do not have any impact on this
argument whatsoever. The comment that I shuddered in agreeing with you
was parenthetical, and was not intended to be part of any argument. I
cannot control whether or not you recognized that intent.
> >>> A team that consistently places second over a long span of time is
> >>> usually better than a team that places first once.
>
> >> And that's just one of many problems with ConnMoore's argument.
>
> > I'm still not convinced that one can come up with an "overall"
> > comparison of conferences that isn't wildly subjective and/or based on
> > faulty assumptions.
>
> Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not the
> one trying to come up with an overall comparison of conferences. I'm
> simply countering ConnMoore's ridiculous notion that you can compare
> conferences by counting titles.
Why do you feel that you need to do so? I and others were already busy
disabusing ConnMoore of that notion before you butted in, in this
thread and in others.
> > Conferences are made up of teams, any of which might be good or bad
> > at a given sport. The only meaningful comparsions are between
> > individual teams in a single sport.
>
> Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not the
> one trying to come up with an overall comparison of conferences.
Irrelevant, given that you have involved yourself in this discussion
of your own volition. By your involvement, you have shown that you are
interested in discussing the matter of overall comparison of
conferences. If you are not interested in such a discussion, why have
you involved yourself in one?
Dan
patrick h hoey iii
On 21 Mar 2002, ConnMoore wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Some facts about what is the best overall sports conference
> >From: "Geoffrey F. Green" geoff...@usa.net
> >Date: 3/21/2002 1:56 PM Pa
>
> >> When Oregon had to get into compliance, they dropped Mens Baseball. It is
> >> amazing how badly it hurts recruiting for football when you dont have a
> >> baseball team.
> >
hence oregon's recent struggles in football...
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>> Its not an "Invective" if it is true. You ARE dense. Its not meant as an
>>>>>> insult, its meant as an observation. You do not understand simple concepts
>>>>>> very well at all.
>>>>> A piece of advice: there is absolutely no point in arguing with Tholen.
>>>> Especially when one doesn't have a logical argument to use, as in the
>>>> case of ConnMoore.
>>> Irrelevant.
>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant to your recommendation, Seriff.
> No it isn't.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> My recommendation had nothing to do with the qualities of
> ConnMoore's arguments.
Illogical, given that you did recommend that he not argue with me,
Seriff.
>>> There is no point in arguing with you regardless of the
>>> soundness or logicality of one's argument.
>> On the contrary, there is a point in arguing with me if you have
>> a logical argument, Seriff.
> No, there really isn't.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> ConnMoore doesn't have one, however.
> I won't speak for his argument.
Irrelevant, given that I wasn't asking you to, Seriff.
>> Neither do you.
> You're erroneously presupposing that one is necessary.
Where did I allegedly make any such presupposition, Seriff? I only said
that you don't have a logical argument. I said nothing about whether
you needed one.
>>> In all your posts that I've seen over the past year or so, I have yet
>>> to see you concede a point, even when it was correct and supported.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Which "correct and
>> supported" point did I allegedly not concede, Seriff? Care to
>> substantiate your claim?
> The definition of "valid" comes to mind.
Why should it, Seriff? Nobody made a "correct and supported" point to
me about that.
>>>>> It's kind of like arguing with a right-wing Christian fundamentalist.
>>>> Classic inappropriate analogy.
>>> I can conclude two things from this statement:
>>>
>>> a) You've never had an argument with a Christian fundamentalist
>> Strike one (namely an incorrect conclusion).
> Unsubstantiated claim.
How ironic, coming from the person who made an unsubstantiated and
erroneous claim. Do you really wish to claim that you know more
about who I've had arguments with than I do, Seriff?
>>> b) You are unaware of how your own style of argument comes across to
>>> others
>> Strike two (namely an incorrect conclusion).
> Unsubstantiated claim.
How ironic, coming from the person who made an unsubstantiated and
erroneous claim.
>>>> This isn't a religious argument.
>>> Irrelevant, given that I never claimed it was.
>> On the contrary, you tried to compare it to an argument with a
>> "right-wing Christian fundamentalist", Seriff.
> You're erroneously presupposing that such a comparison requires an
> equivalency of subject matter.
Where did I allegedly make any such presupposition, Seriff?
>>>>> He probably thinks he's being very clever,
>>>> What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
> I should note that this statement is actually irrelevant, given that I
> didn't say anything about what I think you think.
Incorrect, Seriff:
DS] He probably thinks he's being very clever,
>>> What you think I think you think is irrelevant, Tholen.
>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what I think
>> you think, Seriff.
> Good, because what you think I think is irrelevant, Tholen.
Which is why I never said anything about it, Seriff. So why are you
bringing that up?
> And that includes what you think I think you think.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what I think
you think I think, Seriff.
>>>>> but he's really just obnoxious.
>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> Opinions one holds of others need no substantiation,
>> They do need justification, Seriff.
> No, they don't.
On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Seriff?
>>> and cannot be erroneous, by definition.
>> Where is the alleged definition that allow such a situation, Seriff?
> If you can prove that my opinion that you are obnoxious is incorrect,
> I will happily concede that no such definition exists.
I see that you didn't answer the question, Seriff. No surprise there,
really.
>>>> I'm not the one making the ridiculous claim about quality being
>>>> measured by championships, Seriff.
>>> Who is making what claim is irrelevant to whether or not you are
>>> obnoxious.
>> Who is making what claim is quite relevant to who is the real
>> obnoxious person here, Seriff.
> Illogical.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> One's behaviour has little to do with the content of one's claims.
Not necessarily, Seriff. Witness your own claims here.
>>>>> The last extended "conversation" I had with Tholen was one of the more
>>>>> surreal experiences I've ever had.
>>>> What was surreal about your extended antagonistic postings, Seriff?
>>> For one thing, that you believed everyone's postings but your own to
>>> be antagonistic.
>> Where did I allegedly indicate any such belief, Seriff?
> You indicate it through your classic victim behaviour.
What alleged "classic victim behavior", Seriff?
> Such an indication does not need to be explicitly stated, it can be
> inferred from your words.
What you infer is irrelevant, Seriff; what you can prove is relevant.
>>> You participate in flame wars just as much, if not
>>> more, than anyone you accuse of being antagonistic.
>> Classic pontification.
> Unsupported claim.
Yes, your claim is unsupported, Seriff. That's why I called it
pontification.
> Your participation in flame wars is easily
> verifiable by a Google search.
Irrelevant, given that your claim has to do with a certain frequency of
participation, Seriff, not merely participation.
>> I see that you don't distinguish between
>> those who start "flame wars" and those who counter the misinformation
>> contained within them.
> What alleged misinformation are you referring to?
That depends on which thread you're referring to, Seriff. In the present
case, the misinformation is the ridiculous notion that number of titles
can be used to identify the overall best sports conference. Or are you
suffering from short term memory problems again?
>> I'm not surprised, coming from someone like you.
> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
> argument.
Where is the alleged invective, Seriff?
>>> The best method of self-defense is to run away (or so my many years of
>>> martial arts training tells me).
>> So naturally you don't run away.
> Not from you.
So much for your martial arts training, Seriff.
> Implementation of self-defense presupposes a perception
> of threat. I don't feel threatened by you.
Then why did you even bother to bring up the matter of self-defense,
Seriff? Yet another irrelevant remark from you.
>> But why do martial arts teachers
>> spend so much time on self-defense methods rather than on how to
>> run away?
> You try running away from someone who is pinning you to the ground and
> punching you in the head.
That occurs when someone doesn't run away first, Seriff.
> If you can't prevent such situations from
> occuring, running away is a moot point.
The key word here is "if", Seriff. Now, how is it relevant to the
present situation?
> Not all martial arts are primarily concerned with self-defense. Some,
> if not most, martial arts schools in this country are sport/exercise
> oriented.
Now, how is that relevant to the present situation, Seriff?
> The real self-defense teachers will teach you only to use your skills
> to create a situation in which it is safe to run away without fear of
> pursual.
Now, how is that relevant to the present situation, Seriff?
>>> The usenet equivalent would be to avoid responding to people you
>>> consider to be antagonistic.
>> You're erroneously presupposing some equivalence here, Seriff.
> You're erroneously presupposing no equivalence, Tholen.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> Your voluminous postings over the years (which are easily accessable
>>> on Google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny their
>>> existence)
>> Your voluminous antagonistic postings over the years (which are easily
>> accessible on google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny
>> their existence) indicate that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
> I don't deny that I've posted frequently to various groups.
Irrelevant, Seriff, given that the issue is not the frequency with which
you post, but rather the antagonism that you use.
> The perception of antagonism is yours, and yours alone, however.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> would indicate that you have not taken this more prudent course of
>>> action.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that not responding is the more prudent
>> course of action, Seriff.
> You're erroneously presupposing that it isn't.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> However, I'm not surprised that an antagonist
>> like you would try to convince the target of your antagonism to not
>> respond.
> Classic pontification, laced with invective.
Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
>> People like you thrive on "winning",
> Classic pontification, laced with invective.
Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
>> and getting the opponent
>> to not respond is interpreted by people like you as a "win".
> Irrelevant. I am not concerned with "winning".
Incorrect, Seriff. The evidence is above.
>>> Perhaps you just thrive on confrontation.
>> Perhaps not, Seriff. That's an illogical conclusion, because someone
>> who thrives on confrontation would initiate such confrontations.
> You're erroneously presupposing those who thrive on confrontation are
> always the intiators.
Classic pontification.
>> Yet
>> the record shows that I'm not the one who starts such confrontations.
>> Rather, it's others, namely the antagonists like you, and in the
>> present case, ConnMoore.
> Classic pontification, laced with invective.
Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
>>>>>> You show me the teams that have finished second 10 times, and the school that
>>>>>> has finished first once.
>>>>> He doesn't have to. The hypothetical is sound enough (shudder, I agreed with
>>>>> Tholen).
>>>> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
>>> Whether or not the argument is sound is irrelevant.
>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Seriff, because you shuddered
>> at it.
> You're erroneously presupposing that my shudder has anything to do
> with whether or not your argument is sound.
Where did I allegedly make such a presupposition, Seriff?
>>> I shuddered because I agreed with you.
>> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
> Non sequitur.
Balderdash, Seriff. I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise
there, really.
>>> I don't really like you,
>> Because I stand up to antagonists like you, Seriff.
> No, because you don't understand how antagonistic and confrontational
> you are yourself,
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm being antagonistic, Seriff.
> and you accuse others of being antagonistic at the drop of a hat.
Incorrect, Seriff; I accuse others of being antagonistic when they resort
to antagonism.
> That's hypocrisy, and I don't particularly care for hypocrites.
You're erroneously presupposing that I accuse others of being
antagonistic at the drop of a hat, Seriff.
>>> so agreeing with you is slightly annoying to me.
>> Illogical, Seriff; you obviously can't separate your feelings toward
>> a person from your interest in a logical argument.
> Irrelevant. My feelings towards you do not have any impact on this
> argument whatsoever.
Incorrect, given that you shuddered when you agreed with me, Seriff.
> The comment that I shuddered in agreeing with you
> was parenthetical,
Where are the alleged parentheses, Seriff?
> and was not intended to be part of any argument.
Then why did you include it in your argument, Seriff?
> I cannot control whether or not you recognized that intent.
Of course you can't control whether or not I can read your mind,
Seriff. You need to learn how to write what you mean.
>>>>> A team that consistently places second over a long span of time is
>>>>> usually better than a team that places first once.
>>>> And that's just one of many problems with ConnMoore's argument.
>>> I'm still not convinced that one can come up with an "overall"
>>> comparison of conferences that isn't wildly subjective and/or based on
>>> faulty assumptions.
>> Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not the
>> one trying to come up with an overall comparison of conferences. I'm
>> simply countering ConnMoore's ridiculous notion that you can compare
>> conferences by counting titles.
> Why do you feel that you need to do so?
Irrelevant, Seriff; the issue here is not my motives.
> I and others were already busy disabusing ConnMoore of that notion
> before you butted in, in this thread and in others.
Incorrect, Seriff; my first posting in this thread came at:
] Message-ID: <y0_l8.595$Qc3.6...@twister.socal.rr.com>
] Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:03:58 GMT
Your first posting in this thread came at:
] Message-ID: <B8BE4E57.2D3BD%micro...@sericap.com>
] Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 20:34:41 GMT
Indeed, I had made three postings in this thread before you made your
first, Seriff. So it is most definitely not true that you were
disabusing ConnMoore of that notion before I "butted in", to use your
antagonistic description for it. What do you call your own participation,
Seriff? Do you also consider yours to be "butting in"?
Amazing how some people so readily destroy their own credibility.
>>> Conferences are made up of teams, any of which might be good or bad
>>> at a given sport. The only meaningful comparsions are between
>>> individual teams in a single sport.
>> Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not the
>> one trying to come up with an overall comparison of conferences.
> Irrelevant,
On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Seriff, given how you are
spending so much time arguing with me rather than with ConnMoore.
> given that you have involved yourself in this discussion
> of your own volition.
Irrelevant, Seriff; the issue here is your decision to argue with me
rather than with ConnMoore, and simply because you can't stand
agreeing with me!
> By your involvement, you have shown that you are interested in
> discussing the matter of overall comparison of conferences.
By my involvement, I have shown that I am interested in countering
ConnMoore's ridiculous notion that number of titles can be a valid
measure of "best overall sports conference", Seriff.
> If you are not interested in such a discussion, why have
> you involved yourself in one?
You're erroneously presupposing that I am interested in such a
discussion as the one you described, Seriff.
Randolph M. Jones
tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
> Indiana has more basketball titles than Kansas, but Kansas has more overall
> wins. Which is the better basketball school?
Indiana.
Jim Weeks
Kentucky
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Indiana has more basketball titles than Kansas, but Kansas has more overall
>> wins. Which is the better basketball school?
> Indiana.
On what basis do you make that claim?
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Indiana has more basketball titles than Kansas, but Kansas has more
>> overall wins. Which is the better basketball school?
> Kentucky
Kentucky wasn't even offered in the comparison.
ConnMoore
because five national titles are a lot more impressive than 2.
Moron.
No one cares about regular season. They care about who wins the title. You
may not understand that, but its just the way it is.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Randolph M. Jones writes:
>>>> Indiana has more basketball titles than Kansas, but Kansas has more
>>>> overall wins. Which is the better basketball school?
>>> Indiana.
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> because five national titles are a lot more impressive than 2.
Kansas has four, if you count 1922 and 1923, before the NCAA had a
basketball championship.
But why aren't 1738 victories more impressive than Indiana's smaller
number?
> Moron.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> No one cares about regular season.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> They care about who wins the title.
Then why do so many coaches talk about one of the goals being to win
the conference, which happens to be done during the regular season?
> You may not understand that, but its just the way it is.
You're erroneously presupposing that that is just the way it is.
ConnMoore
>From: tho...@AntiSpam.ham
>> You may not understand that, but its just the way it is.
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that that is just the way it is.
No I am not.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> You may not understand that, but its just the way it is.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that that is just the way it is.
> No I am not.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. I'm not surprised that
you would remove the issue from your follow-up, however, in a feeble
attempt to mislead readers. Or do you deny that some coaches make
winning the conference (which occurs during the regular season) a goal?
Daniel Seriff
> >>>>> A piece of advice: there is absolutely no point in arguing with Tholen.
>
> >>>> Especially when one doesn't have a logical argument to use, as in the
> >>>> case of ConnMoore.
>
> >>> Irrelevant.
>
> >> On the contrary, it's quite relevant to your recommendation, Seriff.
>
> > No it isn't.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Evidence, please?
> > My recommendation had nothing to do with the qualities of
> > ConnMoore's arguments.
>
> Illogical, given that you did recommend that he not argue with me,
> Seriff.
And how is that relevant to the quailites of his argument?
> >>> There is no point in arguing with you regardless of the
> >>> soundness or logicality of one's argument.
>
> >> On the contrary, there is a point in arguing with me if you have
> >> a logical argument, Seriff.
>
> > No, there really isn't.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Non sequitur.
> >> ConnMoore doesn't have one, however.
>
> > I won't speak for his argument.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I wasn't asking you to, Seriff.
Non sequitur.
> >> Neither do you.
>
> > You're erroneously presupposing that one is necessary.
>
> Where did I allegedly make any such presupposition, Seriff? I only said
> that you don't have a logical argument. I said nothing about whether
> you needed one.
Your statement that I don't have a logical argument presupposes that
you believe one is necessary. If you did not believe that a logical
argument was necessary, why would you bother to point out that I did
not have one?
> >>> In all your posts that I've seen over the past year or so, I have yet
> >>> to see you concede a point, even when it was correct and supported.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Which "correct and
> >> supported" point did I allegedly not concede, Seriff? Care to
> >> substantiate your claim?
>
> > The definition of "valid" comes to mind.
>
> Why should it, Seriff? Nobody made a "correct and supported" point to
> me about that.
Incorrect. That you chose not to believe the correct and supported
points is your problem.
> >>>>> It's kind of like arguing with a right-wing Christian fundamentalist.
>
> >>>> Classic inappropriate analogy.
>
> >>> I can conclude two things from this statement:
> >>>
> >>> a) You've never had an argument with a Christian fundamentalist
>
> >> Strike one (namely an incorrect conclusion).
>
> > Unsubstantiated claim.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who made an unsubstantiated and
> erroneous claim. Do you really wish to claim that you know more
> about who I've had arguments with than I do, Seriff?
Irrelevant, given that I never claimed to know with whom you've had
arguments.
> >>> b) You are unaware of how your own style of argument comes across to
> >>> others
>
> >> Strike two (namely an incorrect conclusion).
>
> > Unsubstantiated claim.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who made an unsubstantiated and
> erroneous claim.
Unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> >>>> This isn't a religious argument.
>
> >>> Irrelevant, given that I never claimed it was.
>
> >> On the contrary, you tried to compare it to an argument with a
> >> "right-wing Christian fundamentalist", Seriff.
>
> > You're erroneously presupposing that such a comparison requires an
> > equivalency of subject matter.
>
> Where did I allegedly make any such presupposition, Seriff?
DT] This isn't a religious argument.
> >>>>> He probably thinks he's being very clever,
>
> >>>> What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
>
> > I should note that this statement is actually irrelevant, given that I
> > didn't say anything about what I think you think.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff:
>
> DS] He probably thinks he's being very clever,
Where is the alleged statement about what I think you think?
"Probably" is not "I think".
> >>> What you think I think you think is irrelevant, Tholen.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what I think
> >> you think, Seriff.
>
> > Good, because what you think I think is irrelevant, Tholen.
>
> Which is why I never said anything about it, Seriff. So why are you
> bringing that up?
Incorrect.
DT] What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
> > And that includes what you think I think you think.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what I think
> you think I think, Seriff.
Incorrect.
DT] What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
> >>>>> but he's really just obnoxious.
>
> >>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>> Opinions one holds of others need no substantiation,
>
> >> They do need justification, Seriff.
>
> > No, they don't.
>
> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Seriff?
On the basis that personal opinions of others do not need to be
justified.
> >>> and cannot be erroneous, by definition.
>
> >> Where is the alleged definition that allow such a situation, Seriff?
>
> > If you can prove that my opinion that you are obnoxious is incorrect,
> > I will happily concede that no such definition exists.
>
> I see that you didn't answer the question, Seriff. No surprise there,
> really.
The location of such a definition is irrelevant. But, just to humor
you, this is from dictionary.com:
"Opinion: 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not
substantiated by positive knowledge or proof"
> >>>> I'm not the one making the ridiculous claim about quality being
> >>>> measured by championships, Seriff.
>
> >>> Who is making what claim is irrelevant to whether or not you are
> >>> obnoxious.
>
> >> Who is making what claim is quite relevant to who is the real
> >> obnoxious person here, Seriff.
>
> > Illogical.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Non sequitur.
> > One's behaviour has little to do with the content of one's claims.
>
> Not necessarily, Seriff. Witness your own claims here.
Non sequitur.
> >>>>> The last extended "conversation" I had with Tholen was one of the more
> >>>>> surreal experiences I've ever had.
>
> >>>> What was surreal about your extended antagonistic postings, Seriff?
>
> >>> For one thing, that you believed everyone's postings but your own to
> >>> be antagonistic.
>
> >> Where did I allegedly indicate any such belief, Seriff?
>
> > You indicate it through your classic victim behaviour.
>
> What alleged "classic victim behavior", Seriff?
Your accusations of others, coupled with your total inability to take
responsibility for your own participation.
> > Such an indication does not need to be explicitly stated, it can be
> > inferred from your words.
>
> What you infer is irrelevant, Seriff; what you can prove is relevant.
Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about what I can prove.
> >>> You participate in flame wars just as much, if not
> >>> more, than anyone you accuse of being antagonistic.
>
> >> Classic pontification.
>
> > Unsupported claim.
>
> Yes, your claim is unsupported, Seriff. That's why I called it
> pontification.
Classic pontification.
> > Your participation in flame wars is easily
> > verifiable by a Google search.
>
> Irrelevant, given that your claim has to do with a certain frequency of
> participation, Seriff, not merely participation.
My claim has to do with both.
> >> I see that you don't distinguish between
> >> those who start "flame wars" and those who counter the misinformation
> >> contained within them.
>
> > What alleged misinformation are you referring to?
>
> That depends on which thread you're referring to, Seriff. In the present
> case, the misinformation is the ridiculous notion that number of titles
> can be used to identify the overall best sports conference.
OK.
> Or are you suffering from short term memory problems again?
Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about my short term
memory.
> >> I'm not surprised, coming from someone like you.
>
> > Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
> > argument.
>
> Where is the alleged invective, Seriff?
DT] I'm not surprised, coming from someone like you.
> >>> The best method of self-defense is to run away (or so my many years of
> >>> martial arts training tells me).
>
> >> So naturally you don't run away.
>
> > Not from you.
>
> So much for your martial arts training, Seriff.
Non sequitur.
> > Implementation of self-defense presupposes a perception
> > of threat. I don't feel threatened by you.
>
> Then why did you even bother to bring up the matter of self-defense,
> Seriff? Yet another irrelevant remark from you.
You are the one who implied that it was necessary to defend myself
from you.
DT] So naturally you don't run away.
> >> But why do martial arts teachers
> >> spend so much time on self-defense methods rather than on how to
> >> run away?
>
> > You try running away from someone who is pinning you to the ground and
> > punching you in the head.
>
> That occurs when someone doesn't run away first, Seriff.
No, it occurs when one cannot thwart or incapacitate one's attacker to
the point where it is safe to run away.
> > If you can't prevent such situations from
> > occuring, running away is a moot point.
>
> The key word here is "if", Seriff. Now, how is it relevant to the
> present situation?
It answers your question:
DT] But why do martial arts teachers spend so much time on
self-defense methods rather DT] than on how to run away?
> > Not all martial arts are primarily concerned with self-defense. Some,
> > if not most, martial arts schools in this country are sport/exercise
> > oriented.
>
> Now, how is that relevant to the present situation, Seriff?
It isn't.
> > The real self-defense teachers will teach you only to use your skills
> > to create a situation in which it is safe to run away without fear of
> > pursual.
>
> Now, how is that relevant to the present situation, Seriff?
It answers your question:
DT] But why do martial arts teachers spend so much time on
self-defense methods rather DT] than on how to run away?
> >>> The usenet equivalent would be to avoid responding to people you
> >>> consider to be antagonistic.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing some equivalence here, Seriff.
>
> > You're erroneously presupposing no equivalence, Tholen.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Non sequitur.
> >>> Your voluminous postings over the years (which are easily accessable
> >>> on Google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny their
> >>> existence)
>
> >> Your voluminous antagonistic postings over the years (which are easily
> >> accessible on google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny
> >> their existence) indicate that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
>
> > I don't deny that I've posted frequently to various groups.
>
> Irrelevant, Seriff, given that the issue is not the frequency with which
> you post, but rather the antagonism that you use.
The perception of antagonism is yours alone.
> > The perception of antagonism is yours, and yours alone, however.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Non sequitur.
> >>> would indicate that you have not taken this more prudent course of
> >>> action.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that not responding is the more prudent
> >> course of action, Seriff.
>
> > You're erroneously presupposing that it isn't.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Non sequitur.
> >> However, I'm not surprised that an antagonist
> >> like you would try to convince the target of your antagonism to not
> >> respond.
>
> > Classic pontification, laced with invective.
>
> Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
In your statement.
DT] However, I'm not surprised that an antagonist like you would try
to convince the target DT] of your antagonism to not respond.
> >> People like you thrive on "winning",
>
> > Classic pontification, laced with invective.
>
> Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
DT] People like you thrive on "winning",
> >> and getting the opponent
> >> to not respond is interpreted by people like you as a "win".
>
> > Irrelevant. I am not concerned with "winning".
>
> Incorrect, Seriff. The evidence is above.
Classic pontification.
> >>> Perhaps you just thrive on confrontation.
>
> >> Perhaps not, Seriff. That's an illogical conclusion, because someone
> >> who thrives on confrontation would initiate such confrontations.
>
> > You're erroneously presupposing those who thrive on confrontation are
> > always the intiators.
>
> Classic pontification.
Non sequitur.
> >> Yet
> >> the record shows that I'm not the one who starts such confrontations.
> >> Rather, it's others, namely the antagonists like you, and in the
> >> present case, ConnMoore.
>
> > Classic pontification, laced with invective.
>
> Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
DT] Yet the record shows that I'm not the one who starts such
confrontations. Rather, it's DT] others, namely the antagonists like
you, and in the present case, ConnMoore.
> >>>>>> You show me the teams that have finished second 10 times, and the school that
> >>>>>> has finished first once.
>
> >>>>> He doesn't have to. The hypothetical is sound enough (shudder, I agreed with
> >>>>> Tholen).
>
> >>>> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
>
> >>> Whether or not the argument is sound is irrelevant.
>
> >> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Seriff, because you shuddered
> >> at it.
>
> > You're erroneously presupposing that my shudder has anything to do
> > with whether or not your argument is sound.
>
> Where did I allegedly make such a presupposition, Seriff?
DT] Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound
argument, Seriff?
> >>> I shuddered because I agreed with you.
>
> >> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Balderdash, Seriff. I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise
> there, really.
Non sequitur.
> >>> I don't really like you,
>
> >> Because I stand up to antagonists like you, Seriff.
>
> > No, because you don't understand how antagonistic and confrontational
> > you are yourself,
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm being antagonistic, Seriff.
Classic pontification.
> > and you accuse others of being antagonistic at the drop of a hat.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff; I accuse others of being antagonistic when they resort
> to antagonism.
Classic pontification.
> > That's hypocrisy, and I don't particularly care for hypocrites.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I accuse others of being
> antagonistic at the drop of a hat, Seriff.
Classic pontification.
> >>> so agreeing with you is slightly annoying to me.
>
> >> Illogical, Seriff; you obviously can't separate your feelings toward
> >> a person from your interest in a logical argument.
>
> > Irrelevant. My feelings towards you do not have any impact on this
> > argument whatsoever.
>
> Incorrect, given that you shuddered when you agreed with me, Seriff.
Illogical.
> > The comment that I shuddered in agreeing with you
> > was parenthetical,
>
> Where are the alleged parentheses, Seriff?
DS] (shudder, I agreed with Tholen).
> > and was not intended to be part of any argument.
>
> Then why did you include it in your argument, Seriff?
You're erroneously presupposing that every word I type is intended to
be included in an argument.
> > I cannot control whether or not you recognized that intent.
>
> Of course you can't control whether or not I can read your mind,
> Seriff. You need to learn how to write what you mean.
I did write what I mean. I cannot control whether or not you correctly
interpreted my writings.
> >>>>> A team that consistently places second over a long span of time is
> >>>>> usually better than a team that places first once.
>
> >>>> And that's just one of many problems with ConnMoore's argument.
>
> >>> I'm still not convinced that one can come up with an "overall"
> >>> comparison of conferences that isn't wildly subjective and/or based on
> >>> faulty assumptions.
>
> >> Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not the
> >> one trying to come up with an overall comparison of conferences. I'm
> >> simply countering ConnMoore's ridiculous notion that you can compare
> >> conferences by counting titles.
>
> > Why do you feel that you need to do so?
>
> Irrelevant, Seriff; the issue here is not my motives.
I'm making it the issue. Answer the question.
> > I and others were already busy disabusing ConnMoore of that notion
> > before you butted in, in this thread and in others.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff; my first posting in this thread came at
> Your first posting in this thread came at:
>
> Indeed, I had made three postings in this thread before you made your
> first, Seriff. So it is most definitely not true that you were
> disabusing ConnMoore of that notion before I "butted in", to use your
> antagonistic description for it.
You're erroneously presupposing that this is the only thread in which
this subject has been discussed.
The thread entitled "ROLL ON BIG 12 CONFERENCE!", active March 17-18
is the first occurence of this discussion in which I have
participated.
> What do you call your own participation, Seriff?
I call it "participation".
> Do you also consider yours to be "butting in"?
No.
> Amazing how some people so readily destroy their own credibility.
Non sequitur.
> >>> Conferences are made up of teams, any of which might be good or bad
> >>> at a given sport. The only meaningful comparsions are between
> >>> individual teams in a single sport.
>
> >> Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not the
> >> one trying to come up with an overall comparison of conferences.
>
> > Irrelevant,
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Seriff, given how you are
> spending so much time arguing with me rather than with ConnMoore.
Irrelevant, given that you made no good-faith attempt to pursue my
comments on comparing conferences. If you did not wish to discuss the
possibilities of comparing conferences, why did you enter this
discussion?
> > given that you have involved yourself in this discussion
> > of your own volition.
>
> Irrelevant, Seriff; the issue here is your decision to argue with me
> rather than with ConnMoore, and simply because you can't stand
> agreeing with me!
Incorrect. At issue here is your decision to argue with me over
attributions rather than pursue my good-faith attempt to turn this
thread back on topic.
DS] Conferences are made up of teams, any of which might be good or
bad at a given sport.
DS] The only meaningful comparsions are between individual teams in a
single sport.
DT] Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not
the one trying to come
DT] up with an overall comparison of conferences.
> > By your involvement, you have shown that you are interested in
> > discussing the matter of overall comparison of conferences.
>
> By my involvement, I have shown that I am interested in countering
> ConnMoore's ridiculous notion that number of titles can be a valid
> measure of "best overall sports conference", Seriff.
And how is that not "discussing the matter of overall comparison of
conferences"?
> > If you are not interested in such a discussion, why have
> > you involved yourself in one?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I am interested in such a
> discussion as the one you described, Seriff.
Where is this alleged presupposition, Tholen?
Erik T. Nomad
will follow just about anything you opine.
Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
E
"Daniel Seriff" <micro...@sericap.com> wrote in message
news:f4f70676.02032...@posting.google.com...
ConnMoore
>Dan..."classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>will follow just about anything you opine.
>
>Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>
>E
I think Dan knows this...I also think Dan is playing with Tholen now. Tholen
is too dense to ever catch on, but it is still a lof of fun to watch.
Erik T. Nomad
"ConnMoore" <conn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020322200410...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Crap, I think I just suffered collateral troll damage. :(
E
ConnMoore
>From: "Erik T. Nomad" erikth...@hotmail.comaChameleon
>> I think Dan knows this...I also think Dan is playing with Tholen now.
>Tholen
>> is too dense to ever catch on, but it is still a lof of fun to watch.
>
>Crap, I think I just suffered collateral troll damage. :(
That shrapnel stings doesnt it?
Erik T. Nomad
Good thing I'm still numb from last night.
E
ConnMoore
>From: "Erik T. Nomad" erikth...@hotmail.comaChameleon
>> That shrapnel stings doesnt it?
>
>Good thing I'm still numb from last night.
>
>E
>
I have NO sympathy for ya.......your program has the best run of the last 10-15
years....My programs BEST and ONLY great moment occured before World War 2.
Im sure you will enjoy reloading next year. Oregon will be stuggling to land a
3rd tream all american from some hick high school in North Dakota..Duke is
going to rub it in by being built around a player who played his high school
ball about 15 miles from my house. Do you think he even considered the remote
prospect of going to Oregon? hahahahah
Duke gets no sympathy because they are going to be good as long as that Coach K
guy can keep his bones together enough to get to the sidelines.......Damn I
hate envy.
Daniel Seriff
> I think Dan knows this...I also think Dan is playing with Tholen now. Tholen
> is too dense to ever catch on, but it is still a lof of fun to watch.
Uh-huh. Keep watching.
--
Daniel Seriff
I never worry that all hell will break loose. My concern is that only part
of hell will break loose and be much harder to detect.
-Carlin
Daniel Seriff
wrote:
> Don't waste your time, Dan..."classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
> will follow just about anything you opine.
I've had encounters with Tholen before. He's very predictable, and thus
entertaining.
> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
Ain't that the truth.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Erik T. Nomad wrote:
>> Don't waste your time, Dan..."classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>> will follow just about anything you opine.
> I've had encounters with Tholen before.
I've had encounters with you before, Seriff.
> He's very predictable, and thus entertaining.
You're very antagonistic, and not very entertaining, Seriff.
>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
> Ain't that the truth.
You're both erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick",
Seriff.
tho...@antispam.ham
> ConnMoore wrote:
>> I think Dan knows this...I also think Dan is playing with Tholen now. Tholen
>> is too dense to ever catch on, but it is still a lof of fun to watch.
> Uh-huh. Keep watching.
Planning on more antagonism, Seriff?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Erik T. Nomad wrote:
>> Dan..."classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>>
>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
> I think Dan knows this...
What you think is irrelevant, ConnMoore.
> I also think Dan is playing with Tholen now.
What you think is still irrelevant, ConnMoore.
> Tholen is too dense to ever catch on,
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
expected from someone who lacks a logical argument. I caught on to
Seriff's antagonisn long ago.
> but it is still a lof of fun to watch.
Given that you started the whole affair with your ridiculous notion
that number of titles can be used to determine "best overall sports
conference", sitting back and having fun watching makes you a troll,
ConnMoore.
tho...@antispam.ham
> ConnMoore wrote:
>> Erik T. Nomad wrote:
>>> Dan..."classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>>>
>>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>> I think Dan knows this...I also think Dan is playing with Tholen now.
>> Tholen is too dense to ever catch on, but it is still a lof of fun to
>> watch.
> Crap, I think I just suffered collateral troll damage. :(
Courtesy of ConnMoore.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Erik T. Nomad wrote:
>>> I think Dan knows this...I also think Dan is playing with Tholen now.
>>> Tholen is too dense to ever catch on, but it is still a lof of fun to
>>> watch.
>> Crap, I think I just suffered collateral troll damage. :(
> That shrapnel stings doesnt it?
You should know, ConnMoore; it's your shrapnel.
tho...@antispam.ham
> ConnMoore wrote:
>> Erik T. Nomad wrote:
>>>> I think Dan knows this...I also think Dan is playing with Tholen now.
>>>> Tholen> is too dense to ever catch on, but it is still a lof of fun to
>>>> watch.
>>> Crap, I think I just suffered collateral troll damage. :(
>> That shrapnel stings doesnt it?
> Good thing I'm still numb from last night.
Bad thing that ConnMoore's shrapnel is flying through this newsgroup.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>> No it isn't.
>> Evidence, please?
>> Non sequitur.
>> Non sequitur.
>>>>> Neither do you.
>>>>>>> Classic inappropriate analogy.
>>>> Unsubstantiated claim.
>>>> Unsubstantiated claim.
>> Unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> Incorrect, Seriff:
>> Incorrect.
>> Incorrect.
>>>> No, they don't.
>>>> Illogical.
>> Non sequitur.
>> Non sequitur.
>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>> Unsupported claim.
>> Classic pontification.
>> OK.
>>>> Not from you.
>> Non sequitur.
>> It answers your question:
>> It isn't.
>> Non sequitur.
>> Non sequitur.
>> Non sequitur.
>> Classic pontification.
>>> Classic pontification.
>> Non sequitur.
>>>> Non sequitur.
>> Non sequitur.
>> Classic pontification.
>> Classic pontification.
>> Classic pontification.
>> Illogical.
>> No.
>> Non sequitur.
>>>> Irrelevant,
> Don't waste your time, Dan...
Practice what you preach, Erik.
> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
> will follow just about anything you opine.
Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" will
follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
You're erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick". You,
however, are in desperate need of a logical argument.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>> A piece of advice: there is absolutely no point in arguing with Tholen.
>>>>>> Especially when one doesn't have a logical argument to use, as in the
>>>>>> case of ConnMoore.
>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant to your recommendation, Seriff.
>>> No it isn't.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Evidence, please?
You already have it, Seriff. Still suffering from reading comprehension
problems? The evidence for your lack of substantiation is above.
>>> My recommendation had nothing to do with the qualities of
>>> ConnMoore's arguments.
>> Illogical, given that you did recommend that he not argue with me,
>> Seriff.
> And how is that relevant to the quailites of his argument?
What are "quailites", Seriff?
>>>>> There is no point in arguing with you regardless of the
>>>>> soundness or logicality of one's argument.
>>>> On the contrary, there is a point in arguing with me if you have
>>>> a logical argument, Seriff.
>>> No, there really isn't.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't
substantiate your claim.
>>>> ConnMoore doesn't have one, however.
>>> I won't speak for his argument.
>> Irrelevant, given that I wasn't asking you to, Seriff.
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that I wasn't
asking you to speak for his argument.
>>>> Neither do you.
>>> You're erroneously presupposing that one is necessary.
>> Where did I allegedly make any such presupposition, Seriff? I only said
>> that you don't have a logical argument. I said nothing about whether
>> you needed one.
> Your statement that I don't have a logical argument presupposes that
> you believe one is necessary.
Where is the alleged presupposition, Seriff?
> If you did not believe that a logical argument was necessary,
> why would you bother to point out that I did not have one?
Because you've been pretending to have one, Seriff; you don't.
>>>>> In all your posts that I've seen over the past year or so, I have yet
>>>>> to see you concede a point, even when it was correct and supported.
>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Which "correct and
>>>> supported" point did I allegedly not concede, Seriff? Care to
>>>> substantiate your claim?
>>> The definition of "valid" comes to mind.
>> Why should it, Seriff? Nobody made a "correct and supported" point to
>> me about that.
> Incorrect.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> That you chose not to believe the correct and supported
> points is your problem.
You're erroneously presupposing that there were "correct and supported
points", Seriff.
>>>>>>> It's kind of like arguing with a right-wing Christian fundamentalist.
>>>>>> Classic inappropriate analogy.
>>>>> I can conclude two things from this statement:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) You've never had an argument with a Christian fundamentalist
>>>> Strike one (namely an incorrect conclusion).
>>> Unsubstantiated claim.
>> How ironic, coming from the person who made an unsubstantiated and
>> erroneous claim. Do you really wish to claim that you know more
>> about who I've had arguments with than I do, Seriff?
> Irrelevant, given that I never claimed to know with whom you've had
> arguments.
Liar:
DS] a) You've never had an argument with a Christian fundamentalist
>>>>> b) You are unaware of how your own style of argument comes across to
>>>>> others
>>>> Strike two (namely an incorrect conclusion).
>>> Unsubstantiated claim.
>> How ironic, coming from the person who made an unsubstantiated and
>> erroneous claim.
> Unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
You really should learn the meanings of words you use before you use
them, Seriff. The lack of your substantiation is evident above, and
that lack represents my substantiation, thus my claim is not
unsubstantiated, nor is it erroneous, Seriff.
>>>>>> This isn't a religious argument.
>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I never claimed it was.
>>>> On the contrary, you tried to compare it to an argument with a
>>>> "right-wing Christian fundamentalist", Seriff.
>>> You're erroneously presupposing that such a comparison requires an
>>> equivalency of subject matter.
>> Where did I allegedly make any such presupposition, Seriff?
> DT] This isn't a religious argument.
Non sequitur; I asked for where I allegedly presupposed an equivalence,
Seriff. I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there,
really.
>>>>>>> He probably thinks he's being very clever,
>>>>>> What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
>>> I should note that this statement is actually irrelevant, given that I
>>> didn't say anything about what I think you think.
>> Incorrect, Seriff:
>>
>> DS] He probably thinks he's being very clever,
> Where is the alleged statement about what I think you think?
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Seriff. I just
finished answering that question.
> "Probably" is not "I think".
Irrelevant, given that I never said it is, Seriff.
>>>>> What you think I think you think is irrelevant, Tholen.
>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what I think
>>>> you think, Seriff.
>>> Good, because what you think I think is irrelevant, Tholen.
>> Which is why I never said anything about it, Seriff. So why are you
>> bringing that up?
> Incorrect.
>
> DT] What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Seriff? That
quotation says nothing about what I think. Rather, it says something
about what you think I think.
>>> And that includes what you think I think you think.
>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say anything about what I think
>> you think I think, Seriff.
> Incorrect.
>
> DT] What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Seriff? That
quotation says nothing about what I think. Rather, it says something
about what you think I think.
>>>>>>> but he's really just obnoxious.
>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>> Opinions one holds of others need no substantiation,
>>>> They do need justification, Seriff.
>>> No, they don't.
>> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Seriff?
> On the basis that personal opinions of others do not need to be
> justified.
Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>>>>> and cannot be erroneous, by definition.
>>>> Where is the alleged definition that allow such a situation, Seriff?
>>> If you can prove that my opinion that you are obnoxious is incorrect,
>>> I will happily concede that no such definition exists.
>> I see that you didn't answer the question, Seriff. No surprise there,
>> really.
> The location of such a definition is irrelevant.
Classic evasion.
> But, just to humor you, this is from dictionary.com:
>
> "Opinion: 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not
> substantiated by positive knowledge or proof"
Irrelevant, Seriff, given that that definition says nothing about
"cannot be erroneous".
>>>>>> I'm not the one making the ridiculous claim about quality being
>>>>>> measured by championships, Seriff.
>>>>> Who is making what claim is irrelevant to whether or not you are
>>>>> obnoxious.
>>>> Who is making what claim is quite relevant to who is the real
>>>> obnoxious person here, Seriff.
>>> Illogical.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't
substantiate your claim.
>>> One's behaviour has little to do with the content of one's claims.
>> Not necessarily, Seriff. Witness your own claims here.
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note the content of your own
claims here.
>>>>>>> The last extended "conversation" I had with Tholen was one of the more
>>>>>>> surreal experiences I've ever had.
>>>>>> What was surreal about your extended antagonistic postings, Seriff?
>>>>> For one thing, that you believed everyone's postings but your own to
>>>>> be antagonistic.
>>>> Where did I allegedly indicate any such belief, Seriff?
>>> You indicate it through your classic victim behaviour.
>> What alleged "classic victim behavior", Seriff?
> Your accusations of others,
Non sequitur; I asked about the alleged "classic victim behavior", Seriff.
> coupled with your total inability to take
> responsibility for your own participation.
What alleged inability, Seriff? Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous
claim on your part, Seriff.
>>> Such an indication does not need to be explicitly stated, it can be
>>> inferred from your words.
>> What you infer is irrelevant, Seriff; what you can prove is relevant.
> Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about what I can prove.
Non sequitur; the issue is what you inferred, Seriff, and you did say
something about that.
>>>>> You participate in flame wars just as much, if not
>>>>> more, than anyone you accuse of being antagonistic.
>>>> Classic pontification.
>>> Unsupported claim.
>> Yes, your claim is unsupported, Seriff. That's why I called it
>> pontification.
> Classic pontification.
You really should learn the meanings of words you use before you use
them, Seriff. The lack of your substantiation is evident above, and
that lack represents my substantiation, thus my claim is not
pontification, Seriff.
>>> Your participation in flame wars is easily
>>> verifiable by a Google search.
>> Irrelevant, given that your claim has to do with a certain frequency of
>> participation, Seriff, not merely participation.
> My claim has to do with both.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>> I see that you don't distinguish between
>>>> those who start "flame wars" and those who counter the misinformation
>>>> contained within them.
>>> What alleged misinformation are you referring to?
>> That depends on which thread you're referring to, Seriff. In the present
>> case, the misinformation is the ridiculous notion that number of titles
>> can be used to identify the overall best sports conference.
> OK.
Why don't you devote your energy to countering that ridiculous notion,
Seriff?
>> Or are you suffering from short term memory problems again?
> Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about my short term
> memory.
That you forgot about the misinformation does say something about
your short term memory, Seriff.
>>>> I'm not surprised, coming from someone like you.
>>> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
>>> argument.
>> Where is the alleged invective, Seriff?
> DT] I'm not surprised, coming from someone like you.
Non sequitur; I asked you about the alleged invective, Seriff. I see
that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there, really.
>>>>> The best method of self-defense is to run away (or so my many years of
>>>>> martial arts training tells me).
>>>> So naturally you don't run away.
>>> Not from you.
>> So much for your martial arts training, Seriff.
> Non sequitur.
On the contrary, it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't use the
very training that you brought up, Seriff.
>>> Implementation of self-defense presupposes a perception
>>> of threat. I don't feel threatened by you.
>> Then why did you even bother to bring up the matter of self-defense,
>> Seriff? Yet another irrelevant remark from you.
> You are the one who implied that it was necessary to defend myself
> from you.
>
> DT] So naturally you don't run away.
On the contrary, it was you who brought up the matter of self-defense,
Seriff:
DS] The best method of self-defense is to run away (or so my many
DS] years of martial arts training tells me).
>>>> But why do martial arts teachers
>>>> spend so much time on self-defense methods rather than on how to
>>>> run away?
>>> You try running away from someone who is pinning you to the ground and
>>> punching you in the head.
>> That occurs when someone doesn't run away first, Seriff.
> No, it occurs when one cannot thwart or incapacitate one's attacker to
> the point where it is safe to run away.
That occurs when someone doesn't run away first, Seriff.
>>> If you can't prevent such situations from
>>> occuring, running away is a moot point.
>> The key word here is "if", Seriff. Now, how is it relevant to the
>> present situation?
> It answers your question:
>
> DT] But why do martial arts teachers spend so much time on
> self-defense methods rather DT] than on how to run away?
I see that you ignored the key word "if" yet again, Seriff.
>>> Not all martial arts are primarily concerned with self-defense. Some,
>>> if not most, martial arts schools in this country are sport/exercise
>>> oriented.
>> Now, how is that relevant to the present situation, Seriff?
> It isn't.
Then why did you bring up the matter of self-defense, Seriff?
>>> The real self-defense teachers will teach you only to use your skills
>>> to create a situation in which it is safe to run away without fear of
>>> pursual.
>> Now, how is that relevant to the present situation, Seriff?
> It answers your question:
>
> DT] But why do martial arts teachers spend so much time on
> self-defense methods rather DT] than on how to run away?
My question is related to your reference to martial arts, Seriff,
but you have yet to state the relevance of that to the present
situation.
>>>>> The usenet equivalent would be to avoid responding to people you
>>>>> consider to be antagonistic.
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing some equivalence here, Seriff.
>>> You're erroneously presupposing no equivalence, Tholen.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't
substantiate your claim.
>>>>> Your voluminous postings over the years (which are easily accessable
>>>>> on Google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny their
>>>>> existence)
>>>> Your voluminous antagonistic postings over the years (which are easily
>>>> accessible on google to anyone who cares to look, so don't try to deny
>>>> their existence) indicate that you are an antagonist, Seriff.
>>> I don't deny that I've posted frequently to various groups.
>> Irrelevant, Seriff, given that the issue is not the frequency with which
>> you post, but rather the antagonism that you use.
> The perception of antagonism is yours alone.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Seriff.
>>> The perception of antagonism is yours, and yours alone, however.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't
substantiate your claim.
>>>>> would indicate that you have not taken this more prudent course of
>>>>> action.
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that not responding is the more prudent
>>>> course of action, Seriff.
>>> You're erroneously presupposing that it isn't.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't
substantiate your claim.
>>>> However, I'm not surprised that an antagonist
>>>> like you would try to convince the target of your antagonism to not
>>>> respond.
>>> Classic pontification, laced with invective.
>> Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
> In your statement.
>
> DT] However, I'm not surprised that an antagonist like you would try
> to convince the target DT] of your antagonism to not respond.
Non sequitur; I asked you where the alleged pontification or invective
is, Seriff.
>>>> People like you thrive on "winning",
>>> Classic pontification, laced with invective.
>> Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
> DT] People like you thrive on "winning",
Non sequitur; I asked you where the alleged pontification or invective
is, Seriff.
>>>> and getting the opponent
>>>> to not respond is interpreted by people like you as a "win".
>>> Irrelevant. I am not concerned with "winning".
>> Incorrect, Seriff. The evidence is above.
> Classic pontification.
You really should learn the meanings of words you use before you use
them, Seriff. The lack of your substantiation is evident above, and
that lack represents my substantiation, thus my claim is not
pontification, Seriff.
>>>>> Perhaps you just thrive on confrontation.
>>>> Perhaps not, Seriff. That's an illogical conclusion, because someone
>>>> who thrives on confrontation would initiate such confrontations.
>>> You're erroneously presupposing those who thrive on confrontation are
>>> always the intiators.
>> Classic pontification.
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't
substantiate your claim.
>>>> Yet
>>>> the record shows that I'm not the one who starts such confrontations.
>>>> Rather, it's others, namely the antagonists like you, and in the
>>>> present case, ConnMoore.
>>> Classic pontification, laced with invective.
>> Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
> DT] Yet the record shows that I'm not the one who starts such
> confrontations. Rather, it's DT] others, namely the antagonists like
> you, and in the present case, ConnMoore.
Non sequitur; I asked you where the alleged pontification or invective
is, Seriff.
>>>>>>>> You show me the teams that have finished second 10 times, and the school that
>>>>>>>> has finished first once.
>>>>>>> He doesn't have to. The hypothetical is sound enough (shudder, I agreed with
>>>>>>> Tholen).
>>>>>> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
>>>>> Whether or not the argument is sound is irrelevant.
>>>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Seriff, because you shuddered
>>>> at it.
>>> You're erroneously presupposing that my shudder has anything to do
>>> with whether or not your argument is sound.
>> Where did I allegedly make such a presupposition, Seriff?
> DT] Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound
> argument, Seriff?
Non sequitur; I asked you where the alleged presupposition took place,
Seriff.
>>>>> I shuddered because I agreed with you.
>>>> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
>>> Non sequitur.
>> Balderdash, Seriff. I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise
>> there, really.
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't answer
the question.
>>>>> I don't really like you,
>>>> Because I stand up to antagonists like you, Seriff.
>>> No, because you don't understand how antagonistic and confrontational
>>> you are yourself,
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm being antagonistic, Seriff.
> Classic pontification.
You really should learn the meanings of words you use before you use
them, Seriff. The lack of your substantiation is evident above, and
that lack represents my substantiation, thus my claim is not
pontification, Seriff.
>>> and you accuse others of being antagonistic at the drop of a hat.
>> Incorrect, Seriff; I accuse others of being antagonistic when they resort
>> to antagonism.
> Classic pontification.
You really should learn the meanings of words you use before you use
them, Seriff. The lack of your substantiation is evident above, and
that lack represents my substantiation, thus my claim is not
pontification, Seriff.
>>> That's hypocrisy, and I don't particularly care for hypocrites.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I accuse others of being
>> antagonistic at the drop of a hat, Seriff.
> Classic pontification.
You really should learn the meanings of words you use before you use
them, Seriff. The lack of your substantiation is evident above, and
that lack represents my substantiation, thus my claim is not
pontification, Seriff.
>>>>> so agreeing with you is slightly annoying to me.
>>>> Illogical, Seriff; you obviously can't separate your feelings toward
>>>> a person from your interest in a logical argument.
>>> Irrelevant. My feelings towards you do not have any impact on this
>>> argument whatsoever.
>> Incorrect, given that you shuddered when you agreed with me, Seriff.
> Illogical.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> The comment that I shuddered in agreeing with you
>>> was parenthetical,
>> Where are the alleged parentheses, Seriff?
> DS] (shudder, I agreed with Tholen).
>>> and was not intended to be part of any argument.
>> Then why did you include it in your argument, Seriff?
> You're erroneously presupposing that every word I type is intended to
> be included in an argument.
So you're admitting to including irrelevancies, Seriff?
>>> I cannot control whether or not you recognized that intent.
>> Of course you can't control whether or not I can read your mind,
>> Seriff. You need to learn how to write what you mean.
> I did write what I mean.
Classic inconsistency.
> I cannot control whether or not you correctly interpreted my writings.
Non sequitur, given that the issue here was your claim about my ability
to recognize your intent.
>>>>>>> A team that consistently places second over a long span of time is
>>>>>>> usually better than a team that places first once.
>>>>>> And that's just one of many problems with ConnMoore's argument.
>>>>> I'm still not convinced that one can come up with an "overall"
>>>>> comparison of conferences that isn't wildly subjective and/or based on
>>>>> faulty assumptions.
>>>> Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not the
>>>> one trying to come up with an overall comparison of conferences. I'm
>>>> simply countering ConnMoore's ridiculous notion that you can compare
>>>> conferences by counting titles.
>>> Why do you feel that you need to do so?
>> Irrelevant, Seriff; the issue here is not my motives.
> I'm making it the issue.
Classic diversionary tactic.
> Answer the question.
Unnecessary, Seriff.
>>> I and others were already busy disabusing ConnMoore of that notion
>>> before you butted in, in this thread and in others.
>> Incorrect, Seriff; my first posting in this thread came at
>> Your first posting in this thread came at:
Note: no response. Indeed, you removed the evidence for your lie,
Seriff.
>> Indeed, I had made three postings in this thread before you made your
>> first, Seriff. So it is most definitely not true that you were
>> disabusing ConnMoore of that notion before I "butted in", to use your
>> antagonistic description for it.
> You're erroneously presupposing that this is the only thread in which
> this subject has been discussed.
Non sequitur. Your erroneous claim specifically referred to this
thread, Seriff:
DS] I and others were already busy disabusing ConnMoore of that notion
DS] before you butted in, in this thread and in others.
> The thread entitled "ROLL ON BIG 12 CONFERENCE!", active March 17-18
> is the first occurence of this discussion in which I have
> participated.
That isn't this thread, Seriff. Your erroneous claim applies
specifically to this thread:
DS] I and others were already busy disabusing ConnMoore of that notion
DS] before you butted in, in this thread and in others.
>> What do you call your own participation, Seriff?
> I call it "participation".
Classic inconsistency.
>> Do you also consider yours to be "butting in"?
> No.
On what basis do you make that inconsistent claim, Seriff?
>> Amazing how some people so readily destroy their own credibility.
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you destroyed
your own credibility.
>>>>> Conferences are made up of teams, any of which might be good or bad
>>>>> at a given sport. The only meaningful comparsions are between
>>>>> individual teams in a single sport.
>>>> Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not the
>>>> one trying to come up with an overall comparison of conferences.
>>> Irrelevant,
>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Seriff, given how you are
>> spending so much time arguing with me rather than with ConnMoore.
> Irrelevant,
On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that you're not comparing
conferences while you're antagonizing me.
> given that you made no good-faith attempt to pursue my
> comments on comparing conferences.
Why should I, Seriff? You already agreed with me.
> If you did not wish to discuss the possibilities of comparing
> conferences, why did you enter this discussion?
The key word here is "if", Seriff.
>>> given that you have involved yourself in this discussion
>>> of your own volition.
>> Irrelevant, Seriff; the issue here is your decision to argue with me
>> rather than with ConnMoore, and simply because you can't stand
>> agreeing with me!
> Incorrect.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> At issue here is your decision to argue with me over attributions
> rather than pursue my good-faith attempt to turn this thread back
> on topic.
Where did I allegedly decide to argue with you over attributions,
Seriff? Where is your allegedly "good-faith attempt to turn this
thread back on topic"?
> DS] Conferences are made up of teams, any of which might be good or
> bad at a given sport.
> DS] The only meaningful comparsions are between individual teams in a
> single sport.
Where did I allegedly decide to argue with you over attributions,
Seriff?
> DT] Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not
> the one trying to come
> DT] up with an overall comparison of conferences.
Where did I allegedly decide to argue with you over attributions,
Seriff?
>>> By your involvement, you have shown that you are interested in
>>> discussing the matter of overall comparison of conferences.
>> By my involvement, I have shown that I am interested in countering
>> ConnMoore's ridiculous notion that number of titles can be a valid
>> measure of "best overall sports conference", Seriff.
> And how is that not "discussing the matter of overall comparison of
> conferences"?
"Overall comparison of conferences" isn't restricted to sports, Seriff.
Is it really that difficult for you?
>>> If you are not interested in such a discussion, why have
>>> you involved yourself in one?
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I am interested in such a
>> discussion as the one you described, Seriff.
> Where is this alleged presupposition, Tholen?
DS] If you are not interested in such a discussion, why have
DS] you involved yourself in one?
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Seriff?
Erik T. Nomad
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:ZNXm8.5995$Q2.18...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > Don't waste your time, Dan...
>
> Practice what you preach, Erik.
The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
> > "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
> > will follow just about anything you opine.
>
> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" will
> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>
> > Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick". You,
> however, are in desperate need of a logical argument.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
E
Randolph M. Jones
If you must know, I based the claim primarily on the possibility that
it would irritate you.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>> Indiana has more basketball titles than Kansas, but Kansas has more overall
>>>> wins. Which is the better basketball school?
>>> Indiana.
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> If you must know, I based the claim primarily on the possibility that
> it would irritate you.
Illogical; what may or may not irritate me has absolutely no bearing on
the quality of a basketball program.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
Excuses, excuses.
>>> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" will
>> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
Note: no response.
>>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick". You,
>> however, are in desperate need of a logical argument.
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Incorrect, given that the absence of a logical argument from you is my
substantiation, Erik.
Erik T. Nomad
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:yk6n8.8930$Q2.22...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Erik T. Nomad writes:
>
> >>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>
> >> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>
> > The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>
> Excuses, excuses.
>
> >>> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
> >>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>
> >> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" will
> >> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>
> Note: no response.
A lack of response is a response in itself.
> >>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick". You,
> >> however, are in desperate need of a logical argument.
>
> > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Incorrect, given that the absence of a logical argument from you is my
> substantiation, Erik.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
E
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>> Excuses, excuses.
Note: no response.
>>>>> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>>>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>>>> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" will
>>>> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>> Note: no response.
> A lack of response is a response in itself.
And what should I take that tacit response to be, Erik? An admission
that you were indeed incorrect?
>>>>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick". You,
>>>> however, are in desperate need of a logical argument.
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> Incorrect, given that the absence of a logical argument from you is my
>> substantiation, Erik.
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
Erik.
Erik T. Nomad
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:ur8n8.8955$Q2.23...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Erik T. Nomad writes:
>
> >>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>
> >>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>
> >>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>
> >> Excuses, excuses.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
> >>>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>
> >>>> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" will
> >>>> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>
> >> Note: no response.
>
> > A lack of response is a response in itself.
>
> And what should I take that tacit response to be, Erik? An admission
> that you were indeed incorrect?
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> >>>>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick".
You,
> >>>> however, are in desperate need of a logical argument.
>
> >>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >> Incorrect, given that the absence of a logical argument from you is my
> >> substantiation, Erik.
>
> > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
> Erik.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
E
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>>>>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>>>> Excuses, excuses.
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>>>>>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>>>>>> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" will
>>>>>> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>>>> Note: no response.
>>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>> And what should I take that tacit response to be, Erik? An admission
>> that you were indeed incorrect?
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't make
any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated or
erroneous.
Erik T. Nomad
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:6%8n8.8960$Q2.23...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Erik T. Nomad writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>
> >>>>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>
> >>>>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>
> >>>> Excuses, excuses.
>
> >> Note: no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
A lack of response is a response in itself.
E
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>>>>>>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>>>>>> Excuses, excuses.
>>>> Note: no response.
>> Note: still no response.
> A lack of response is a response in itself.
An ambiguous response, Erik.
>>>>>>>>> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>>>>>>>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" will
>>>>>>>> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>>>> And what should I take that tacit response to be, Erik? An admission
>>>> that you were indeed incorrect?
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't make
>> any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated or
>> erroneous.
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't
make any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated
or erroneous.
>>>>>>>>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
Erik T. Nomad
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:4_9n8.8969$Q2.24...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Erik T. Nomad writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>
> >>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>
> >>>>>>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>
> >>>>>> Excuses, excuses.
>
> >>>> Note: no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> > A lack of response is a response in itself.
>
> An ambiguous response, Erik.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
E
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>>>>>>>>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>>>>>>>> Excuses, excuses.
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>> An ambiguous response, Erik.
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Incorrect, Erik.
Erik T. Nomad
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:zTan8.8973$Q2.24...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Erik T. Nomad writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>
> >>>>>>>>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>
> >>>>>>>> Excuses, excuses.
>
> >>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>> Note: still no response.
>
> >>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>
> >> An ambiguous response, Erik.
>
> > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Incorrect, Erik.
Non sequitur.
> >>>>>>>>>>> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
> >>>>>>>>>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim"
will
> >>>>>>>>>> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>
> >>>>>> And what should I take that tacit response to be, Erik? An
admission
> >>>>>> that you were indeed incorrect?
>
> >>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>>> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't make
> >>>> any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated or
> >>>> erroneous.
>
> >>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't
> >> make any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated
> >> or erroneous.
>
> > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't
> make any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated
> or erroneous.
Non sequitur.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I have or need a
"schtick". You,
> >>>>>>>>>> however, are in desperate need of a logical argument.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>>>>>>> Incorrect, given that the absence of a logical argument from you
is my
> >>>>>>>> substantiation, Erik.
>
> >>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>>>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less
incorrect,
> >>>>>> Erik.
>
> >>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less
incorrect,
> >>>> Erik.
>
> >>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
> >> Erik.
>
> > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
> Erik.
Non sequitur.
E
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>>>>>>>>>>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>>>>>>>>>> Excuses, excuses.
>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>>>> An ambiguous response, Erik.
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> Incorrect, Erik.
> Non sequitur.
Also incorrect, Erik.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" will
>>>>>>>>>>>> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>>>>>>>> And what should I take that tacit response to be, Erik? An admission
>>>>>>>> that you were indeed incorrect?
>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't make
>>>>>> any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated or
>>>>>> erroneous.
>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't
>>>> make any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated
>>>> or erroneous.
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't
>> make any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated
>> or erroneous.
> Non sequitur.
Also incorrect, Erik.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick". You,
>>>>>>>>>>>> however, are in desperate need of a logical argument.
>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, given that the absence of a logical argument from you is my
>>>>>>>>>> substantiation, Erik.
>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
>>>>>>>> Erik.
>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
>>>>>> Erik.
>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
>>>> Erik.
>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
>> Erik.
> Non sequitur.
Also incorrect, Erik.
"Don't waste your time, Dan..."
--Erik T. Nomad
Classic hypocrisy.
Erik T. Nomad
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:hfbn8.8974$Q2.24...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Erik T. Nomad writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop
typing.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Excuses, excuses.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>
> >>>> An ambiguous response, Erik.
>
> >>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >> Incorrect, Erik.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Also incorrect, Erik.
Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
Tholen.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous
claim" will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>
> >>>>>>>> And what should I take that tacit response to be, Erik? An
admission
> >>>>>>>> that you were indeed incorrect?
>
> >>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>>>>> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't make
> >>>>>> any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated or
> >>>>>> erroneous.
>
> >>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't
> >>>> make any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated
> >>>> or erroneous.
>
> >>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't
> >> make any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated
> >> or erroneous.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Also incorrect, Erik.
Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
Tholen.
Tholen.
> "Don't waste your time, Dan..."
> --Erik T. Nomad
>
> Classic hypocrisy.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
E
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Erik.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The will is strong, but the flesh is weak. I can't stop typing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Excuses, excuses.
>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>>>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>>>>>> An ambiguous response, Erik.
>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>> Incorrect, Erik.
>>> Non sequitur.
>> Also incorrect, Erik.
> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
> Tholen.
So why do you do it, Erik?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Erik; "classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow unsubstantiated and erroneous claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>>>> A lack of response is a response in itself.
>>>>>>>>>> And what should I take that tacit response to be, Erik? An admission
>>>>>>>>>> that you were indeed incorrect?
>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>>>> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't make
>>>>>>>> any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated or
>>>>>>>> erroneous.
>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't
>>>>>> make any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated
>>>>>> or erroneous.
>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Erik? I didn't
>>>> make any claim that could be categorized as either unsubstantiated
>>>> or erroneous.
>>> Non sequitur.
>> Also incorrect, Erik.
> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
> Tholen.
So why do you do it, Erik?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick". You,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, are in desperate need of a logical argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, given that the absence of a logical argument from you is my
>>>>>>>>>>>> substantiation, Erik.
>>>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>>>>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
>>>>>>>>>> Erik.
>>>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
>>>>>>>> Erik.
>>>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
>>>>>> Erik.
>>>>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
>>>> Erik.
>>> Non sequitur.
>> Also incorrect, Erik.
> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
> Tholen.
So why do you do it, Erik?
>> "Don't waste your time, Dan..."
>> --Erik T. Nomad
>>
>> Classic hypocrisy.
> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Where is the alleged invective, Erik?
Warren Lushia
tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
> > Tholen.
>
> So why do you do it, Erik?
non sequitur. erik enjoys kicking puppies, beating up old ladies, picking on retarded
kids, as well as making fun of you, tholen.
> >> Also incorrect, Erik.
>
> > Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
> > Tholen.
>
> So why do you do it, Erik?
because, urkel is off the air, not to mention the fact that urkel was smart, was much
less annoying, and the actor who portrayed him could take you off the dribble and
travel through time. oh yeah, he had some semblence of social skills...
>
> > Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
> Where is the alleged invective, Erik?
i dunno, your pretentious diction is too much fer me meeger mind. all i know is you
can't spell a-s-s-h-o-l-e without t-H-O-L-E-n. of course, that is a classic and
unsubstaniated claim, as well as a non sequitur, in addition to being illogical and
irrelevant.
warren..
Daniel Seriff
> Daniel Seriff writes:
>
> > Erik T. Nomad wrote:
>
> >> Don't waste your time, Dan..."classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
> >> will follow just about anything you opine.
>
> > I've had encounters with Tholen before.
>
> I've had encounters with you before, Seriff.
Irrelevant, given that I never said you didn't.
> > He's very predictable, and thus entertaining.
>
> You're very antagonistic, and not very entertaining, Seriff.
Classic pontification.
> >> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>
> > Ain't that the truth.
>
> You're both erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick",
> Seriff.
Classic pontification.
Daniel Seriff
Non sequitur.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Erik T. Nomad wrote:
>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
>>> Tholen.
>> So why do you do it, Erik?
> non sequitur.
Incorrect; it's quite sequitur to note that Erik has engaged in that
to which he was referring.
> erik enjoys kicking puppies, beating up old ladies, picking on retarded
> kids, as well as making fun of you, tholen.
I'm well aware that Erik is an antagonist, Warren. He's also a hypocrite,
having told Seriff to not bother.
>>>> Also incorrect, Erik.
>>> Repetition of an incorrect statement won't make it any less incorrect,
>>> Tholen.
>> So why do you do it, Erik?
> because, urkel is off the air, not to mention the fact that urkel was
> smart, was much less annoying,
Less annoying than what?
> and the actor who portrayed him could take you off the dribble and
> travel through time.
Through the magic of television, which is irrelevant here.
> oh yeah, he had some semblence of social skills...
Unlike Erik (or you, for that matter).
>>> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>> Where is the alleged invective, Erik?
> i dunno, your pretentious diction is too much fer me meeger mind.
What alleged "pretentious diction", Warren?
> all i know is you can't spell a-s-s-h-o-l-e without t-H-O-L-E-n.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> of course, that is a classic and unsubstaniated claim,
Unfortunately, that realization didn't prevent you from using it.
> as well as a non sequitur, in addition to being illogical and
> irrelevant.
So why bother?
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Erik T. Nomad wrote:
>>>> Don't waste your time, Dan..."classic unsubstatiated and erroneous claim"
>>>> will follow just about anything you opine.
>>> I've had encounters with Tholen before.
>> I've had encounters with you before, Seriff.
> Irrelevant, given that I never said you didn't.
On the contrary, it's no less irrelevant than your similar statement,
Seriff.
>>> He's very predictable, and thus entertaining.
>> You're very antagonistic, and not very entertaining, Seriff.
> Classic pontification.
You really should learn the meanings of the words you use, Seriff.
Your antagonism is evident in this thread, therefore my statement
is not pontification.
>>>> Tholen's in desperate need of a new schtick.
>>> Ain't that the truth.
>> You're both erroneously presupposing that I have or need a "schtick",
>> Seriff.
> Classic pontification.
On your part, Seriff.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> ConnMoore wrote:
>>>> I think Dan knows this...I also think Dan is playing with Tholen now. Tholen
>>>> is too dense to ever catch on, but it is still a lof of fun to watch.
>>> Uh-huh. Keep watching.
>> Planning on more antagonism, Seriff?
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Seriff. I see that the answer to my question is the
affirmative.
Daniel Seriff
> >>>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant to your recommendation, Seriff.
>
> >>> No it isn't.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Evidence, please?
>
> You already have it, Seriff.
Incorrect.
> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?
Non sequitur, laced with invective.
> The evidence for your lack of substantiation is above.
Classic pontification.
> >> Illogical, given that you did recommend that he not argue with me,
> >> Seriff.
>
> > And how is that relevant to the quailites of his argument?
>
> What are "quailites", Seriff?
Non sequitur. And you didn't answer the question. No surprise, really.
> >>> No, there really isn't.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't
> substantiate your claim.
Hypocritical. "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" is an
unsubstantiated claim.
> >> Irrelevant, given that I wasn't asking you to, Seriff.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that I wasn't
> asking you to speak for his argument.
Hypocritical. "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" is an
unsubstantiated claim.
> >>>> Neither do you.
>
> >>> You're erroneously presupposing that one is necessary.
>
> >> Where did I allegedly make any such presupposition, Seriff? I only said
> >> that you don't have a logical argument. I said nothing about whether
> >> you needed one.
>
> > Your statement that I don't have a logical argument presupposes that
> > you believe one is necessary.
>
> Where is the alleged presupposition, Seriff?
Implicit.
> > If you did not believe that a logical argument was necessary,
> > why would you bother to point out that I did not have one?
>
> Because you've been pretending to have one, Seriff; you don't.
Illogical. Note that you didn't answer the question. No surprise
there, really.
> >>> The definition of "valid" comes to mind.
>
> >> Why should it, Seriff? Nobody made a "correct and supported" point to
> >> me about that.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Jaakko Mäntiyjärvi made a correct and supported point.
> > That you chose not to believe the correct and supported
> > points is your problem.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that there were "correct and supported
> points", Seriff.
They were, you simply chose not to accept them as such.
> > Irrelevant, given that I never claimed to know with whom you've had
> > arguments.
>
> Liar:
>
> DS] a) You've never had an argument with a Christian fundamentalist
Removing a statement from context to make your argument look logical
is disingenuous, and very bad form coming from someone who relies so
heavily on logic.
> You really should learn the meanings of words you use before you use
> them, Seriff.
Non sequitur, laced with invective.
> The lack of your substantiation is evident above,
Classic pontification.
> and that lack represents my substantiation,
Classic pontification.
> thus my claim is not unsubstantiated, nor is it erroneous, Seriff.
Classic pontification.
> >> Where did I allegedly make any such presupposition, Seriff?
>
> > DT] This isn't a religious argument.
>
> Non sequitur; I asked for where I allegedly presupposed an equivalence,
> Seriff.
And I provided a quote from you in which you presupposed an
equivalence was necessary.
> I see that you didn't answer the question.
Incorrect. The question was answered, you simply chose not to accept
that answer.
> >> Incorrect, Seriff:
> >>
> >> DS] He probably thinks he's being very clever,
>
> > Where is the alleged statement about what I think you think?
>
> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Seriff.
Non sequitur.
> I just finished answering that question.
Incorrect.
> > "Probably" is not "I think".
>
> Irrelevant, given that I never said it is, Seriff.
Whether or not you explicitly stated it is irrelevant. To wit:
DS] He probably thinks he's being very clever,
Nowhere in this statement did I refer to what I think, yet you
responded:
DT] What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
Thus, you equated "probably" and "I think".
> > DT] What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
>
> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Seriff? That
> quotation says nothing about what I think. Rather, it says something
> about what you think I think.
Incorrect. Every statement you make says something about what you
think.
> > DT] What you think I think is irrelevant, Seriff.
>
> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Seriff? That
> quotation says nothing about what I think. Rather, it says something
> about what you think I think.
Incorrect. Every statement you make says something about what you
think.
> >>>> They do need justification, Seriff.
>
> >>> No, they don't.
>
> >> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Seriff?
>
> > On the basis that personal opinions of others do not need to be
> > justified.
>
> Classic illogical circular reasoning.
Illogical, given that circles are not illogical.
> > The location of such a definition is irrelevant.
>
> Classic evasion.
Incorrect, given that the location of such a definition is irrelevant.
> > But, just to humor you, this is from dictionary.com:
> >
> > "Opinion: 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not
> > substantiated by positive knowledge or proof"
>
> Irrelevant, Seriff, given that that definition says nothing about
> "cannot be erroneous".
Irrelevant, given that personal opinions about others cannot be
falsified, and thus cannot be erroneous.
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't
> substantiate your claim.
Non sequitur.
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note the content of your own
> claims here.
Illogical, given that the content of one's claims is irrelevant to
one's behaviour.
> >> What alleged "classic victim behavior", Seriff?
>
> > Your accusations of others,
>
> Non sequitur; I asked about the alleged "classic victim behavior", Seriff.
Deflection of blame is an integral part of classic victim behavour.
> > coupled with your total inability to take responsibility for your own participation.
>
> What alleged inability, Seriff?
QED.
> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim on your part, Seriff.
Classic pontificaiton.
> >> What you infer is irrelevant, Seriff; what you can prove is relevant.
>
> > Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about what I can prove.
>
> Non sequitur; the issue is what you inferred, Seriff,
Incorrect. You declared that issue to be irrelevant, and raised the
issue of what I can prove.
> and you did say something about that.
Irrelevant, given your declaration of irrelevancy.
> > Classic pontification.
>
> The lack of your substantiation is evident above, and
Classic pontification.
> that lack represents my substantiation,
Classic pontification.
> thus my claim is not pontification, Seriff.
Classic pontification.
> > My claim has to do with both.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Non sequitur.
> > OK.
>
> Why don't you devote your energy to countering that ridiculous notion, Seriff?
Non sequitur.
> > Irrelevant, given that I never said anything about my short term
> > memory.
>
> That you forgot about the misinformation
You're erroneously presupposing that I forgot about alleged
"misinformation".
> does say something about your short term memory, Seriff.
Non sequitur. My short term memory is not the issue here.
> >> Where is the alleged invective, Seriff?
>
> > DT] I'm not surprised, coming from someone like you.
>
> Non sequitur; I asked you about the alleged invective, Seriff.
And I provided you with the quotation in which the invective occurs.
> I see that you didn't answer the question.
Incorrect.
> >> So much for your martial arts training, Seriff.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't use the
> very training that you brought up, Seriff.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't feel the need to use my training.
> > You are the one who implied that it was necessary to defend myself
> > from you.
> >
> > DT] So naturally you don't run away.
>
> On the contrary, it was you who brought up the matter of self-defense,
Irrelevant, given that you were the one who implied that it was
necessary to defend myself from you.
> >> That occurs when someone doesn't run away first, Seriff.
>
> > No, it occurs when one cannot thwart or incapacitate one's attacker to
> > the point where it is safe to run away.
>
> That occurs when someone doesn't run away first, Seriff.
It is difficult to run away when someone is pinning you to the ground
and punching you in the head.
> I see that you ignored the key word "if" yet again, Seriff.
You're erroneously presupposing that "if" is the key word.
> Then why did you bring up the matter of self-defense, Seriff?
Non sequitur.
> > It answers your question:
> >
> > DT] But why do martial arts teachers spend so much time on
> > self-defense methods rather DT] than on how to run away?
>
> My question is related to your reference to martial arts, Seriff,
Incorrect, your question addresses a specific point about martial
arts.
> but you have yet to state the relevance of that to the present situation.
Incorrect, given that the relevance is self-evident. If you do not
respond to percieved antagonism, then you will not suffer from said
antagonism.
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing some equivalence here, Seriff.
>
> >>> You're erroneously presupposing no equivalence, Tholen.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you didn't
> substantiate your claim.
Rather ironic, coming from someone who made an unsubstantiated and
erroneous claim.
> > The perception of antagonism is yours alone.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Seriff.
If you wish to counter my claim, Tholen, you are welcome to do so with
evidence. "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim" is mere
contradiction, not logic. No surprise, really.
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing that not responding is the more prudent
> >>>> course of action, Seriff.
>
> >>> You're erroneously presupposing that it isn't.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff;
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> it's quite sequitur
Grammatically nonsensical.
> to note that you didn't substantiate your claim.
Rather ironic, coming from someone who made an unsubstantiated and
erroneous claim.
> >> Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
>
> > In your statement.
> >
> > DT] However, I'm not surprised that an antagonist like you would try
> > to convince the target DT] of your antagonism to not respond.
>
> Non sequitur; I asked you where the alleged pontification or invective is, Seriff.
And I provided you with a quotation which contained said pontification
and invective.
> >> Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
>
> > DT] People like you thrive on "winning",
>
> Non sequitur; I asked you where the alleged pontification or invective
> is, Seriff.
And I provided you with a quotation which contained said pontification
and invective.
> >> Where is the alleged pontification or invective, Seriff?
>
> > DT] Yet the record shows that I'm not the one who starts such
> > confrontations. Rather, it's DT] others, namely the antagonists like
> > you, and in the present case, ConnMoore.
>
> Non sequitur; I asked you where the alleged pontification or invective
> is, Seriff.
And I provided you with a quotation which contained said pontification
and invective.
> >> Where did I allegedly make such a presupposition, Seriff?
>
> > DT] Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound
> > argument, Seriff?
>
> Non sequitur; I asked you where the alleged presupposition took place,
> Seriff.
And I provided you with a quotation which contained said
presupposition.
> >>>> Why would you need to shudder at your agreement with a sound argument, Seriff?
>
> >>> Non sequitur.
>
> >> Balderdash, Seriff. I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise
> >> there, really.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff;
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> it's quite sequitur
Grammatically nonsensical.
> to note that you didn't answer the question.
Irrelevant, given that your question was non sequitur.
> > Classic pontification.
>
> You really should learn the meanings of words you use before you use
> them, Seriff. The lack of your substantiation is evident above, and
> that lack represents my substantiation, thus my claim is not
> pontification, Seriff.
Classic pontification, laced with invective.
> You really should learn the meanings of words you use before you use
> them, Seriff. The lack of your substantiation is evident above, and
> that lack represents my substantiation, thus my claim is not
> pontification, Seriff.
Classic pontification, laced with invective.
> You really should learn the meanings of words you use before you use
> them, Seriff. The lack of your substantiation is evident above, and
> that lack represents my substantiation, thus my claim is not
> pontification, Seriff.
Classic pontification, laced with invective.
> >> Incorrect, given that you shuddered when you agreed with me, Seriff.
>
> > Illogical.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Evidence, please.
> >> Where are the alleged parentheses, Seriff?
>
> > DS] (shudder, I agreed with Tholen).
Note: no response.
> >> Then why did you include it in your argument, Seriff?
>
> > You're erroneously presupposing that every word I type is intended to
> > be included in an argument.
>
> So you're admitting to including irrelevancies, Seriff?
Irrelevant, given that the determination of irrelevancy is itself
irrelevant when the allegedly irrelevant statement in question is not
intended to be included in a logical argument, as indicated by
parentheses or other such separating punctuation.
> >> Of course you can't control whether or not I can read your mind,
> >> Seriff. You need to learn how to write what you mean.
>
> > I did write what I mean.
>
> Classic inconsistency.
Where is the alleged inconsistency, Tholen?
> > I cannot control whether or not you correctly interpreted my writings.
>
> Non sequitur, given that the issue here was your claim about my ability
> to recognize your intent.
Illogical, given that correct interpretation and recognition of intent
are inextricably connected. If you were to incorrectly interpret my
writings, you will not recognize my intent.
> >>> Why do you feel that you need to do so?
>
> >> Irrelevant, Seriff; the issue here is not my motives.
>
> > I'm making it the issue.
>
> Classic diversionary tactic.
Irrelevant, given that I made your motives the issue by questioning
them.
> > Answer the question.
>
> Unnecessary, Seriff.
Incorrect, Tholen.
> >>> I and others were already busy disabusing ConnMoore of that notion
> >>> before you butted in, in this thread and in others.
>
> >> Incorrect, Seriff; my first posting in this thread came at
> >> Your first posting in this thread came at:
>
> Note: no response. Indeed, you removed the evidence
Incorrect. The evidence is easily accessible on Google by anyone who
cares to look, so my removing them would not serve the purpose to
which you are alluding. I removed it because of space concerns and
because the information that it contained was not relevant.
> for your lie, Seriff.
I did not lie. Your accusation comes as no surprise, however.
> >> Indeed, I had made three postings in this thread before you made your
> >> first, Seriff. So it is most definitely not true that you were
> >> disabusing ConnMoore of that notion before I "butted in", to use your
> >> antagonistic description for it.
>
> > You're erroneously presupposing that this is the only thread in which
> > this subject has been discussed.
>
> Non sequitur. Your erroneous claim specifically referred to this
> thread, Seriff:
Incorrect, Tholen. You didn't even bother to remove the evidence of
your own lie from the quotation directly below.
> DS] I and others were already busy disabusing ConnMoore of that notion
> DS] before you butted in, in this thread and in others.
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Tholen, or did
you just forget to edit out "and in others"?
> > The thread entitled "ROLL ON BIG 12 CONFERENCE!", active March 17-18
> > is the first occurence of this discussion in which I have
> > participated.
>
> That isn't this thread, Seriff.
Irrelevant, given that I said "in this thread and in others".
> Your erroneous claim applies specifically to this thread:
Incorrect, Tholen. You didn't even bother to remove the evidence of
your own lie from the quotation directly below.
> DS] I and others were already busy disabusing ConnMoore of that notion
> DS] before you butted in, in this thread and in others.
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Tholen, or did
you just forget to edit out "and in others"?
> >> What do you call your own participation, Seriff?
>
> > I call it "participation".
>
> Classic inconsistency.
Illogical. "Participation" and "participation" are equivalent. There
is no inconsistency.
> >> Do you also consider yours to be "butting in"?
>
> > No.
>
> On what basis do you make that inconsistent claim, Seriff?
You're erroneously supposing that this claim is inconsistent, Tholen.
> >> Amazing how some people so readily destroy their own credibility.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Incorrect, Seriff; it's quite sequitur to note that you destroyed
> your own credibility.
Where have I allegedly destroyed my credibility, Tholen?
> >> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Seriff, given how you are
> >> spending so much time arguing with me rather than with ConnMoore.
>
> > Irrelevant,
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that you're not comparing
> conferences while you're antagonizing me.
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm antagonizing you, and not the
other way around.
> > given that you made no good-faith attempt to pursue my
> > comments on comparing conferences.
>
> Why should I, Seriff?
Why shouldn't you, Tholen?
> You already agreed with me.
Irrelevant, given that prior agreement is not a predictor of future
agreement.
> > If you did not wish to discuss the possibilities of comparing
> > conferences, why did you enter this discussion?
>
> The key word here is "if", Seriff.
You're erroneously presupposing that "if" is the key word, Tholen.
> >> Irrelevant, Seriff; the issue here is your decision to argue with me
> >> rather than with ConnMoore, and simply because you can't stand
> >> agreeing with me!
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Classic diversionary tactics.
> > At issue here is your decision to argue with me over attributions
> > rather than pursue my good-faith attempt to turn this thread back
> > on topic.
>
> Where did I allegedly decide to argue with you over attributions, Seriff?
After I attempted to engage you in discussion of an issue that
ConnMoore raised:
DT] Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff.
> Where is your allegedly "good-faith attempt to turn this
> thread back on topic"?
Quoted directly below.
> > DS] Conferences are made up of teams, any of which might be good or
> > bad at a given sport.
> > DS] The only meaningful comparsions are between individual teams in a
> > single sport.
>
> Where did I allegedly decide to argue with you over attributions,
> Seriff?
Irrelevant, given that my quote directly above does not refer to
attributions.
> > DT] Then take up the matter with ConnMoore, not me, Seriff. I'm not
> > the one trying to come
> > DT] up with an overall comparison of conferences.
>
> Where did I allegedly decide to argue with you over attributions,
> Seriff?
In the quote above, as has already been explained.
> >>> By your involvement, you have shown that you are interested in
> >>> discussing the matter of overall comparison of conferences.
>
> >> By my involvement, I have shown that I am interested in countering
> >> ConnMoore's ridiculous notion that number of titles can be a valid
> >> measure of "best overall sports conference", Seriff.
>
> > And how is that not "discussing the matter of overall comparison of
> > conferences"?
>
> "Overall comparison of conferences" isn't restricted to sports, Seriff.
Incorrect, given that conferences are not relevant outside the context
of sports (there's a reason they're called *athletic* conferences (in
fact, six of the 32 D-I conferences actually include the word
"athletic" in their names)). Thus, a meaningful "overall comparison of
conferences" is necessarily restricted to sports. Indeed, inclusion of
non-athletic endeavours would make any such comparison quickly descend
into information-overload and meaninglessness.
> Is it really that difficult for you?
Non sequitur, laced with invective.
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I am interested in such a
> >> discussion as the one you described, Seriff.
>
> > Where is this alleged presupposition, Tholen?
>
> DS] If you are not interested in such a discussion, why have
> DS] you involved yourself in one?
There is no presupposition of interest in that question. The key word
is "if".
> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Seriff?
Non sequitur.