This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Why Americans can't speak (or write in) English properly.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Van don't try to keep a fight going.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
526101
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm sorry, but there is no way typing "passed" instead of "past" is a typo.
Yes, there is. It's called multitasking. I begin by thinking out what I'm going to say, then I deposit that into my short term memory. Once it's there I can begin to think about something else while typing it straight from memory. However, since I'm no longer putting any conscious effort into, any gaps that occur in the memory are filled automatically. It's a common occurrence among people who think faster than they type.
As far as correcting typos, I do correct them when I see them. However, I don't have the leisure of being able to spend much time on Wowhead. A quick post here and a post there are all I can manage most of the time.
Lastly, nothing of what you said applies to Americans only.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Apparently we have a differing opinion of the definition of "typo"... I would call that a "mistake".
Which is exactly what I called it: "Yes, I make grammatical mistakes, just like everyone else. Making mistakes, however, is not the same thing as 'giving a crap if we don't write so good .'"
But I
do
define a typo as typing something that one did not mean to type.
Post by
285472
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
No it's not relative to his playing pool. Who ever said that?
Implied, because I believe (biased opinion) that you don't know what the universal standard of basketball is, and so therefore, can only come to a biased conclusion of what a 'good' player is.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No it's not relative to his playing pool. Who ever said that?
Implied, because I believe (biased opinion) that you don't know what the universal standard of basketball is, and so therefore, can only come to a biased conclusion of what a 'good' player is.
Universal Standard of Basketball.
Post by
Squishalot
*cough* context fail :P
Post by
526101
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A simile if you please...
The "Universal Standards of Basketball" presented above are rules that have been decided upon by officials in a structured system. They outline rules that have been deemed to be acceptable, but are not necessarily the only rules in the game. If you can recall, basketball is a Canadian invention. It has come a long way from it's original context involving an over-inflated (appropriate?) rugby ball and a peach basket. The game has evolved. These rules might be the be all and end all to some people, but they are still just one set of rules. There may be entirely different rules that apply when the game is taken to the streets, or into back alleys. The rules, however, remain rules which should be at least acknowledged as a backbone of the game. If someone decides to alter the rules, or just ignores them then maybe these rules can be acceptable in certain situations, but they must understand that there are those out there that have a strict adherance to the rules. Those people adhering to the rules might become upset if someone breaks the rules, but they have to understand that there are those out there that have been ill-informed, or miss-informed. It is important not to over generalise and state that every back alley basketballer is not aware of the rules. They might watch basketball religiously, study the rules in their spare time, or even be an NBA referee, but when they play back alley basketball they use the understood (if not appropriate) rules at hand.
However, you failed to understand my argument over the last 3 pages, stating that the words are arbitrary. When I say "My brother is good at basketball," basketball is an arbitrary word used to signify something. That something is the game as described by the NBA.
*cough* context fail :P
I don't understand the context fail. You seem to want me to compare him to other players. I'm not doing that. I am only comparing him to the standard.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
526101
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Again, just because someone is a good basketball player, doesn't mean they have to play by the rules all of the time.
But one who does play by the rules and has everything else perfect is necessarily a better basketball player than the person who gets everything perfect but breaks the rules.
Therefore the perfect basketball player
would
follow the rules.
Does he still make every shot, dribble perfectly, and never get tired? I doubt it. The Perfect basketball player would, yes.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't understand the context fail. You seem to want me to compare him to other players. I'm not doing that. I am only comparing him to the standard.
Let me remind you of what you've said:
And how are you classifying how 'conformed' he is?
What is his shot percentage? What is his block percentage? How many times has he fouled? How many times has he lost?
It's all very linear.
Comparison to a standard.
When I use the term good I mean above the median (bad below the median)
, so in this case >50%.
Comparison to other players.
So given this, any statement can be broken down.
"My brother is good at basketball."
Now, what am I trying to signify by these words?
That my brother is above the median
when it comes to shooting baskets, steeling balls, blocking shots, not fouling, etc. in the arena of basketball.
Comparison to other players.
A players goodness is still inherently linked to winning
, just as much as the 'perfect' player would always win.
Comparison to other players/teams.
You're being horribly inconsistent. You want to compare him to the standard, you don't want to compare him to other players, yet you define him as 'good' because he sits above 50% of players in terms of skill/statistics, or because he wins more than 50% of his games (where winning is relative to other players in his tournament pool).
Sorry, Hyper, you normally present a fairly decent argument, but in this case, you're running around in circles and contradicting yourself horribly.
Post by
Orranis
A simile if you please...
The "Universal Standards of Basketball" presented above are rules that have been decided upon by officials in a structured system. They outline rules that have been deemed to be acceptable, but are not necessarily the only rules in the game. If you can recall, basketball is a Canadian invention. It has come a long way from it's original context involving an over-inflated (appropriate?) rugby ball and a peach basket. The game has evolved. These rules might be the be all and end all to some people, but they are still just one set of rules. There may be entirely different rules that apply when the game is taken to the streets, or into back alleys. The rules, however, remain rules which should be at least acknowledged as a backbone of the game. If someone decides to alter the rules, or just ignores them then maybe these rules can be acceptable in certain situations, but they must understand that there are those out there that have a strict adherance to the rules. Those people adhering to the rules might become upset if someone breaks the rules, but they have to understand that there are those out there that have been ill-informed, or miss-informed. It is important not to over generalise and state that every back alley basketballer is not aware of the rules. They might watch basketball religiously, study the rules in their spare time, or even be an NBA referee, but when they play back alley basketball they use the understood (if not appropriate) rules at hand.
However, you failed to understand my argument over the last 3 pages, stating that the words are arbitrary. When I say "My brother is good at basketball," basketball is an arbitrary word used to signify something. That something is the game as described by the NBA.
*cough* context fail :P
I don't understand the context fail. You seem to want me to compare him to other players. I'm not doing that. I am only comparing him to the standard.
I think this is a horrible argument. You can compare him however you like, it doesn't change the point. It changes how you measure how good he is, not the point at which you would call him good. You never said what 'good' actually is. Good can be defined as either 'satisfactory' or 'high quality'. In a sport such as basketball, you cannot define some as good by making more shots then they miss. Everyone has their own standards, and those standards are based on what we see from other people.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
@Squish, I think you misunderstand my use of median.
50% shot rate is above the median, 50% block rate is above the median, etc. None of that has any reference to other players.
And winning is not in reference to other players
per se
, only accidentally in that a team has to lose for them to win.
I never once used other players as a comparison. You did, not me.
@Faceshield
I already clearly stated what good meant. If you're going to keep jumping in, make sure you've read all the posts.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
