You think Belichick runs up the score?

[aluminum seats]

Exactly what score would be the cutoff between a "huge blowout" and "disgusting over-the-top"?

Start with the fact that 100-0 is disgusting and go from there.

 

[Deus Irae]

Start with the fact that 100-0 is disgusting and go from there.

No. Give me the score where one turns into the other.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

No. Give me the score where one turns into the other.

It's not merely a question of score, but of how the game is played.

The private Christian school defeated Dallas Academy last week. Covenant was up 59-0 at halftime.

A parent who attended the game told The Associated Press that Covenant continued to make 3-pointers -- even in the fourth quarter. She praised the Covenant players but said spectators and an assistant coach were cheering wildly as their team edged closer to 100 points.

I dunno, but that seems entirely uncalled for to me.

And, BTW:

The Bulldogs play, Civello said, for more than the final score. They play in hope of improving skills, learning teamwork and picking up whatever life lessons athletics may bring.

But they won't be playing Covenant again this season; they canceled their Jan. 30 game against the team. After the game, Dallas Academy informed the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools that it was withdrawing its girls team from the league for the rest of the season.

"We just said, 'The hell with it,' " said Jim Richardson, Dallas Academy's headmaster.

 

[aluminum seats]

No. Give me the score where one turns into the other.

Should there be hardcore pornography on broadcast TV? No? Well then there should be no scenes of a sexual nature at all then, right? Hmmm. Tell me when one turns into another.

 

[Patjew]

No. Give me the score where one turns into the other.

Running a full court press when up 88-0 is reprehensible.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's not merely a question of score, but of how the game is played.

I agree, but I think that there's a difference between running up a score in tee ball and running up a score in a high school league. By the time a person is in high school, they should be ready to handle such things.

I dunno, but that seems entirely uncalled for to me.

Why, when a 3 pointer is a more difficult shot to hit than a layup? Should the coach have told the kids to stick a foot on the three point line, against all previous training?

And, BTW:[/QUOTE]

I'm glad they finally smartened up. Of course, they should have done it before this happened. The idiocy of that school's administration has resulted in another school taking a lot of unwarranted grief.

Look, I understand the point that some people are making, because it was a ridiculous score. And, if this had been the only game where the losing team had taken this sort of beating, or if it were just this one bad season, I could probably even agree with a lot of the specifics. However, this is a team chosen from a pool of 20 girls, that hasn't won a game in 4 years. I find it more than a little bit ridiculous that:

A.) Kids who are in smaller classes in order to get more one-on-one encouragement for learning disabilities are tossed to the wolves year after year. What the hell is the thinking behind this? "Well, these kids struggle having to deal with the real pressures of normal school, so let's given them special treatment for their education, but absolutely crush their spirits every time they step on a baskteball court."

B.) This game is so awful, but the 55-6, 66-4 and 49-7 games were ok. Think about this. This is a team that can't score 10 points in a game, and people care about the difference between 66 and 100?


When you throw chum into shark infested waters, you really have no right to complain when the shark eats the chum.

 

[Deus Irae]

Should there be hardcore pornography on broadcast TV? No? Well then there should be no scenes of a sexual nature at all then, right? Hmmm. Tell me when one turns into another.

1.) This is what's known as a red herring.

2.) You still haven't answered the question.

3.) I'm a free market and free speech person, so I'm a lot more annoyed at the idea of the government censoring the airwaves than I am at the idea of having pornography on broadcast television.

 

[aluminum seats]

1.) This is what's known as a red herring.

2.) You still haven't answered the question.

3.) I'm a free market and free speech person, so I'm a lot more annoyed at the idea of the government censoring the airwaves than I am at the idea of having pornography on broadcast television.

No, actually it's what's known as an analogy, but I can understand why you'd be flummoxed by it. The analogy answers the question--let me explain to you: the disgusting (or reprehensible, or any other word that reasonable people here have had) score of 100-0 was also disgusting at 99-0. Which is why you didn't answer the pornography question.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, actually it's what's know as an analogy, but I can understand why you'd be flummoxed by it. The analogy answers the question--let me explain to you: the disgusting (or reprehensible, or any other word that reasonable people here have had) score of 100-0 was also disgusting at 99-0. Which is why you didn't answer the pornography question.

1.) You might want to look up "red herring"

2.) The analogy is piss-poor, to put it mildly. However, your attempt to use the "tell me when one turns into the other" argument was the point, really. For all your huffing an puffing, you can't find a standardized cutoff point. Don't worry, the judges couldn't figure out where to draw the line either.

Movie Day at the Supreme Court or "I Know It When I See It": A History of the Definition of Obscenity

3.) Actually, I did answer the pornography question. I just didn't answer it in the way you'd hoped. I don't think it's the government's place to censor the public broadcasting airwaves. Inherent in such a position is the realization that this will likely lead to pornography being on broadcast television. Fortunately, I have the capability of changing channels.

 

[aluminum seats]

1.) You might want to look up "red herring"

2.) The analogy is piss-poor, to put it mildly. However, your attempt to use the "tell me when one turns into the other" argument was the point, really. For all your huffing an puffing, you can't find a standardized cutoff point. Don't worry, the judges couldn't figure out where to draw the line either.

Movie Day at the Supreme Court or "I Know It When I See It": A History of the Definition of Obscenity

3.) Actually, I did answer the pornography question. I just didn't answer it in the way you'd hoped. I don't think it's the government's place to censor the public broadcasting airwaves. Inherent in such a position is the realization that this will likely lead to pornography being on broadcast television. Fortunately, I have the capability of changing channels.

No need to look up red herring, because my analogy was spot-on, which you proved by answering it this time--you didn't the last time.

We have an answer--you feel that hardcore pornography should be allowed on broadcast TV, and you feel that nothing is wrong with the 100-0 score. I disagree on both points. I don't feel there is a magical number that occurred when that game became disgusting. I do feel, as most do, that full-court presses at 88-0, etc. are disgusting, and taking contrary positions to that is pathetic. You feel otherwise.....which is clarifying.

 

[Disco Volante]

Should there be hardcore pornography on broadcast TV? No? Well then there should be no scenes of a sexual nature at all then, right? Hmmm. Tell me when one turns into another.

100-0 = Hardcore Pornography
66-4 = Scenes with sexual nature

?

 

[Deus Irae]

No need to look up red herring, because my analogy was spot-on, which you proved by answering it this time--you didn't the last time.

Ummm...

I'm a free market and free speech person, so I'm a lot more annoyed at the idea of the government censoring the airwaves than I am at the idea of having pornography on broadcast television.

is an answer to your question. Also, your analogy was not spot on, it was a red herring. My question was about a basketball score, not the definition of obscenity. You have, in fact, still not given me a cutoff score.

We have an answer--you feel that hardcore pornography should be allowed on broadcast TV, and you feel that nothing is wrong with the 100-0 score. I disagree on both points. I don't feel there is a magical number that occurred when that game became disgusting. I do feel, as most do, that full-court presses at 88-0, etc. are disgusting, and taking contrary positions to that is pathetic. You feel otherwise.....which is clarifying.

The difference between us is that I'm not whining like a little girl about how mean the team scoring 100 points was, and how it was 'disgusting', because I realize that the blame for what happened lies at the feet of the administrators and A.D. of the school that lost.

 

[Deus Irae]

100-0 = Hardcore Pornography
66-4 = Scenes with sexual nature

?

Yep,..... spot on analogy....




I wonder what score is a boob flash?

 

[aluminum seats]

Ummm...

is an answer to your question. Also, your analogy was not spot on, it was a red herring. My question was about a basketball score, not the definition of obscenity. You have, in fact, still not given me a cutoff score.



The difference between us is that I'm not whining like a little girl about how mean the team scoring 100 points was, and how it was 'disgusting', because I realize that the blame for what happened lies at the feet of the administrators and A.D. of the school that lost.

Here’s the definition of analogy for you: An analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. Understand? And no, you didn’t answer the question the first time, but don’t worry, you did the second time when you stated your position that hardcore pornography should be allowed on broadcast TV.

And again, since maybe you missed it the first time, I agree that the administration of the school should place the team in another league. But for the girls at school there who wanted to play basketball, the adults coaching the other team demonstrated no sense of decency by running up the score to the tune of 100-0.

On these points, we obviously disagree.

 

[Deus Irae]

Here’s the definition of analogy for you: An analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. Understand? And no, you didn’t answer the question the first time, but don’t worry, you did the second time when you stated your position that hardcore pornography should be allowed on broadcast TV.

And again, since maybe you missed it the first time, I agree that the administration of the school should place the team in another league. But for the girls at school there who wanted to play basketball, the adults coaching the other team demonstrated no sense of decency by running up the score to the tune of 100-0.

On these points, we obviously disagree.

I know what an analogy is, and one can use an analogy as a red herring, which is what you did and continue to do:

but don’t worry, you did the second time when you stated your position that hardcore pornography should be allowed on broadcast TV.

This is not what the thread is about, and it's not a "spot on" analogy", yet you've turned to it because you can't answer a simple question. That's why it's a red herring.

As for the sense of decency, I'll ask you again. What's the cutoff score?

 

[aluminum seats]

I know what an analogy is, and one can use an analogy as a red herring, which is what you did and continue to do:

This is not what the thread is about, and it's not a "spot on" analogy", yet you've turned to it because you can't answer a simple question. That's why it's a red herring.

As for the sense of decency, I'll ask you again. What's the cutoff score?

I can't tell if you're pretending not to understand arguments because you're trying to be funny (in which case, my bad!) or you really don't understand. Let me explain, because you've made my point for me in posting the link to the famous "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...but I know it when I see it." This is precisely why the analogy was and is so spot on. There is no magical number when that score became reprehensible, do you see? But 100-0 is. I can't put it any clearer than that for you.

 

[Deus Irae]

I can't tell if you're pretending not to understand arguments because you're trying to be funny (in which case, my bad!) or you really don't understand. Let me explain, because you've made my point for me in posting the link to the famous "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...but I know it when I see it." This is precisely why the analogy was and is so spot on. There is no magical number when that score became reprehensible, do you see? But 100-0 is. I can't put it any clearer than that for you.

I understand your argument full well. You know that you can't come up with a "legitimate" point where a blowout becomes "disgusting over-the-top", so you're trying to equate sportmanship to pornography. The analogy simply fails on multiple levels, and it's a red herring trying to get distract from the fact that you've called defending the winning team "pathetic" when you can't even delineate the tipping point for the purpose of your argument.

Again, this is a team that has yet to score 10 points in a game this season. using your "I'll know it when I see it" argument, I could make a perfectly valid assertion that scoring even 20 points on that squad would be running it up, and that scoring 30 would be just short of satanic.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I know what an analogy is, and one can use an analogy as a red herring, which is what you did and continue to do:



This is not what the thread is about, and it's not a "spot on" analogy", yet you've turned to it because you can't answer a simple question. That's why it's a red herring.

As for the sense of decency, I'll ask you again. What's the cutoff score?

Well, it's obviously less than 100-0 in the mind of the officials at the Covenant School, since they made "a formal request to forfeit the game recognizing that a victory without honor is a great loss."

And, to answer a question you didn't ask, I think there should be rules requiring coaches to make active efforts not to run up the score, as CT established last year in HS football. [If, for example, Covenant had pulled all its starters at the half, but the score still turned out 100-0, I'd have far less of a problem.]

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, it's obviously less than 100-0 in the mind of the officials at the Covenant School, since they made "a formal request to forfeit the game recognizing that a victory without honor is a great loss."

And, to answer a question you didn't ask, I think that running up the score has no place in high school sports, period, and even in college it's a debatable point whether or not mercy rules should exist.

You're assigning a motive to the school without any knowledge of it. The attempt to end the bad publicity explains the school's actions just as well as any genuine belief along the lines of your claim.

When did we become such a bunch of sissies that we can't take a beating even when we know one's coming because we put ourselves in the way of it? If some 150lb man is stupid enough to line up against an NFL caliber linebacker for tackle drills, should we be complaining to the linebacker when he knocks the guy on his ass?

 

[aluminum seats]

I understand your argument full well. You know that you can't come up with a "legitimate" point where a blowout becomes "disgusting over-the-top", so you're trying to equate sportmanship to pornography. The analogy simply fails on multiple levels, and it's a red herring trying to get distract from the fact that you've called defending the winning team "pathetic" when you can't even delineate the tipping point for the purpose of your argument.

Again, this is a team that has yet to score 10 points in a game this season. using your "I'll know it when I see it" argument, I could make a perfectly valid assertion that scoring even 20 points on that squad would be running it up, and that scoring 30 would be just short of satanic.

There comes a time (like now) where the entertainment value of your obtuseness just becomes boring. I am SAYING that there is no single point where the "winning" team's behavior became undecent to any reasonable person. It simply was. Again--I appreciate the fact you acknowledged you feel that hardcore pornography should be allowed on broadcast TV, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the "winning" team's behavior in the 100-0 game. Again, we have fundamental disagreements on these points.