Celtics vs. Lakers - The Final Chapter: michaeljohn wins by concession and logic

[rexhamer]

Edit micheljohn: BackdoorJesus is of the opinion below this thread should have been posted in the smack talk thread. Since he didn't merge them, I won't either. Instead, we will let rexhamer have his 15 minutes of fame. My refutation of his new article follows below.

In order to “stay on point” regarding this discussion of Celtics vs. Lakers, I figure it is best to simply start a new thread. I am sure many of you have little interest in this debate, but an accusation of lying has been made towards me and I take that seriously. In addition, given the number of insults MJ has thrown my way, I will take great satisfaction in administering the coup de grace to his cherished Lakers argument here in front of everyone at Webrats. I am not sure of the posting capacity, and there is a lot of info to come, so I will post in small increments.

The accusation of lying is based on the fact that both of us have claimed victory. Therefore it should be simple to conclude that whoever is the clear victor in this debate is telling the truth, and whoever is the clear loser is the liar. I shall be vindicated in this manner.

And just to be clear for everyone – there were five separate and lengthy blogs posted one the “other” site, alternating between MJ and me. To avoid confusion, I will refer to them by number and author; i.e., the first blog is Blog 1(MJ), the second would be Blog 2(Rex), etc.

[rexhamer]

When I was first formulating this reply, I thought about going point-by-point with a few rebuttals, but it is clear that nobody is interested in that level of detail. I thought about showing a few examples of MJ’s flaccid argument, such as the fact that his “scorecard” includes Lakers advantages of more wins and fewer losses in conference championships, yet only show Finals wins as an advantage for the Celtics. Where are the Finals losses of the Lakers? Clearly, the results of the NBA Finals carry much more significance than the conference championships.

I also thought about pointing out the fact that MJ has teased us with his new concept of the Inevitable Exception to the Rule (IETTR). I presumed he was going to provide some examples of exceptions that disprove “rules” that he claims I stated. However, even though he references the IETTR a few times (even here at Webrats he posted something about it), he never actually provides a single exception to any rule! Not a one. He says there out there, but the self-proclaimed king of Internet research cannot provide any examples!

I was thinking of pointing out that he is incorrect when he claims I have refuted the majority of the categories of his scorecard (and let us not forget – this is HIS scorecard, based on categories that are relevant in HIS opinion). I have not dismissed them; I have just diminished their importance as many of them deal with regular season results that have not translated into championship results. MJ has even concurred with this notion regarding the relevance of 60-win seasons. Instead of addressing the point at hand, he ignores it and weakly offers a criticism of my use of the term “gaudy”.

And I was also thinking of noting that he does not include the Celtics significant 9-2 edge in head-to-head as it is just my opinion. But let’s all note how often MJ and other Lakers fans have proclaimed during the course of this season that they wanted to meet the Celtics in the Finals. Not just that they wanted to win a championship, but they wanted it to be against their dominant rival. Even yesterday, on the eve of the Finals, Euro-weenie Sasha Vucovich was quoted, “We wanted the Celtics”. Lakers fans and even Lakers players themselves are all cognoscente of wanting to put a dent in 9-2.

I could easily have gone though MJ’s entire final blog and refuted all his points for the third time if I chose to. But I will demonstrate that it is completely unnecessary.

[rexhamer]

It has been obvious from the start that neither MJ nor I were going to have our minds changed or concede this argument. And on the other site, with more activity than Webrats, Celtics and Lakers fans fall predictably in line with their team’s allegiances (except for one Lakers fan who has alternated between his support for the Celtics and the Lakers. I don’t know what to make of him!). The true measurement of success in this argument can only be derived from examining the conclusions of neutral fans in their replies to our separate blogs. These neutral fans are objective and unbiased, with no preconceived attachment to either side of this argument. Even MJ agrees with this. But more on that in a moment.

To that end, I have reviewed the replies to all five blogs and compiled a tabulation of the number of responses that have taken a specific position for either MJ’s case or mine. I have discounted trolls, replies of smack talk only, anyone who merely replied “Go Lakers” or “Go Celtics” without indicating their opinion of the question at hand (these were equal anyway). I have also discounted any Lakers fans who merely said the Lakers have been more successful in the last 40 years without expressing an opinion of the full history of the NBA. This debate is not about the last 40 years.

As a reminder, the five blogs go, 1 to 5: MJ-Rex-MJ-Rex-MJ. First off I will list overall supporters, even if they are identified as a fan of either team. This was made possible either from information in their public profile (which lists favorite teams) or could be reasonably deduced from how they replied. I have not counted multiple replies to the same blog. However, I have counted each respondent per blog as consistent support (or lack thereof) is a consideration. (Since I first examined this months ago for Blog 1(MJ), the numbers have changed a bit due to additional replies and the fact that I was better able to identify Lakers and Celtics fans.) The results, by blog:

Blog 1 2 3 4 5
Lakers 10 – 2 – 3 – 1 – 1 Total = 17
Celtics 9 – 8 – 5 – 7 – 8 Total = 37

Yikes! 37 – 17 is a rout! I realize these numbers are not extensive in their quantity, but in the immortal words if Bill Belichick – “they are what they are”. And remember – I should put an asterisk next to the Lakers figure for Blog 4(Rex) as that is the one where MJ made not two, as I thought earlier, but FIVE separate pleas to his fellow Lakers fans on their home page to come and submit a reply to show support for his case.

[rexhamer]

Here’s how they went:
1) 2/27/09 - Meanwhile, I am tearing [Rex]'s blog apart. He is trying to set the rules of the debate. Anything goes! Find his blog, it's linked in mine, bookmark it, and back me up. I will win this for us!
2) 2/27/09 - Guys don't forget to support me as I destroy [Rex]'s blog. Add a comment, it's full of Celtics fans. He thinks he is beating me, and he isn't! I am exposing him left and right!
3) 2/28/09 - Please show your support for me fellow Lakers fans in his blog with your replies of encouragement. I am winning and will win this for us.
4) 3/1/09 - Hey Lakers fans! I am continuing the fight to prove the Lakers are the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA by refuting [Rex]'s blog. ….. You guys are invited to give me and the Lakers support in his blog.
5) 3/1/09 - Meanwhile, I am busy destroying [Rex]'s blog. Have a look and reply with support for the Lakers!


Five separate pleas for help over 3 days, and the result: not a single Lakers fan responded. That’s right – zero, zilch, zip, none, nil, nada, a goose egg, the big donut, a complete whitewash, a shutout! MJ says there was plenty of support for him on the Lakers home page. Well, if there was, apparently they were not that supportive to take a few moments and a few keystrokes to show it! And in classic MJ fashion, he posts this on the Lakers page after I pointed out to him that it was obvious no Lakers fan was going to make the small effort to show their support:


3/2/09 - Have look if you wish, but don't reply. We don't want [Rex] to think I am desperate for support, I will win this on my own!


What a joke! Let’s not forget how MJ bragged after his first blog that Celtics fans had not come forward to debate him in his blog. Therefore, we will hold Lakers fans to the same standard. If they did not come forward and reply to a blog, but meekly stayed in the comfortable confines of the Lakers pages, they cannot be counted.

I will also note for the record that not one single time did I go on the Celtics pages to recruit support. I have not been a member long enough to develop such relationships, and frankly, I would never stoop that low. I made one post each time to notify members that my blogs were available. Nothing more.

[rexhamer]

But let’s take another look at those results:

Blog 1 2 3 4 5
Lakers 10 – 2 – 3 – 1 – 1 Total = 17
Celtics 9 – 8 – 5 – 7 – 8 Total = 37

Notice a trend here? As we proceed from Blog 1(MJ) to his last blog, not only is Lakers support falling off to almost nothing while Celtic support remains strong, the drop-off of Lakers support begins significantly with my introduction to this argument with Blog 2(Rex). What happened to all those Lakers fans who showed support for Blog 1(MJ)? Obviously, when faced with an argument full of common sense, logic, facts and historical data, they saw the light!

To be even more fair and objective, let’s only count a respondent one time, even if they posted over multiple blogs:

Blog 1 2 3 4 5
Lakers 10 – 2 – 2 – 1 – 1 Total = 16
Celtics 9 – 5 – 3 – 5 – 5 Total = 27

27-16, it’s still a rout! The multiple replies indicate strong and consistent support from Celtics fans. MJ can only wish he had the same from his Lakers brethren.

[rexhamer]

But now let’s take a look at the smoking gun of this debate. When we exclude Lakers or Celtics fans from the above count of replies, and examine only “neutral” replies, we get this:

Blog 1 2 3 4 5
Lakers 2 – 0 – 0 – 1 - 1 Total = 4
Celtics 3 – 4 – 2 – 4 - 5 Total = 18

Yikes again! 18-4! Another rout! And we know this hits home with MJ, because he has indicated his willingness to let neutral observers express their opinion as he said this:

I was relying on the masses to see through your biased statistics and take my side.”

And then this just recently regarding his vaunted “scorecard”:
At any rate, a list like this allows a neutral fan to compare and make a decision.

So before MJ can warm up his response to dismiss these results of neutral observers, he must reconcile the fact that he was counting on neutral observers to justify his case. Well, neutral fans have spoken and they clearly did not take his side. And I would point out the irony that 18-4 is the first multiple of 9-2! Once again, when the Celtics and Lakers go head-to-head, the ratio of victory for the Celtics is 9-2! MJ can run outside at any time to scream his frustration.

[rexhamer]

And here is the coup de grace I promised. Take note of the results of neutral observers to Blog 5(MJ). This is the blog he claims has refuted all my points. My examples noted above aside for the moment, you will find that neutral replies have come in at 5-1 for the Celtics. That’s 5 out of 6, that’s 83% in favor of the Celtics after reviewing and evaluating Blog 5(MJ). MJ has repeatedly whined that I haven’t refuted his blog.

I DON’T NEED TO!

He’s doing my job for me; i.e., winning converts over to the Celtics cause! What do you call a blog that has the exact opposite affect of its author’s intent? A complete and utter failure! It must be painfully obvious to MJ that nobody is buying what he is selling. (Even GM salespersons are doing better these days!) I should probably thank him for doing my job for me. In fact, I should encourage him to write another blog, maybe the results will be 10-1 in favor of the Celtics!

[rexhamer]

Now MJ will probably try to say many of these respondents have concluded that it is all about championships and the Celtics lead the Lakers. It is MJ’s basic premise that 17-14 is so close we must look elsewhere. But if neutral observers are rejecting MJ’s basic premise, they are rejecting his entire argument (and not all of them claim merely the championship lead as the reason for their opinion, many of them have rejected other facets of his argument).

He may also point out that none of these respondents have provided a point-by-point rebuttal. One does not need to provide a point-by-point rebuttal to disagree with something. For instance, MJ may post a 5,000 word blog “proving” the world is flat. An interested reader may simply review all the relevant points, weigh their validity, and come to an intelligent and common sense conclusion that they disagree. A lengthy rebuttal is not necessary.

The figures I have provided are an honest, accurate, undeniable and irrefutable tabulation of all the replies to the blogs. There is no opinion or speculation relevant to theses results. They are not “misleading stats”, in fact, they are just the opposite.

So after 5 blogs, tens of thousands of words, dozens of replies, endless points and counter-points, the votes are in and the polls are closed. The jury of neutral observers has weighed the evidence and the verdict is clearly in favor of the Celtics by an 18-4 margin. I can accurately and confidently proclaim that there is overwhelming consensus on the Internet that the Boston Celtics are the most successful franchise in NBA history.

So when the results of any contest are 18-4, it is clear that when the team/person with the “18” claims victory, they are telling the truth. When the team/person with only “4” claims victory, they are either delusional or lying. I’ll let others be the judge of making that determination.

Game, set, match: Rexhamer!

I rest MY case.

[BackdoorJesus]

Are you fucking kidding me? You're still on this pedantic rant?

Wow...you sure spend a lot of time rehashing this bullshit.

Have fun with that while the rest of us enjoy watching the Lakers crush Orlando in the Finals.

You do recall Orlando, right? Those are the guys that knocked your candyass Celtics out in the fucking semifinals. No problem for the Lakers though it appears.

See ya next year...when your team might matter again.

Oh and as far as your "case" goes; you can rest it, but the jury says you lose.

[michaeljohn]

Oh my stars and garters. This will be so easy to refute. I'll address it point by point shortly.

rexhamer, prepare to have your ass handed to you! The biggest flaw in his argument above was one I already warned him about, and I said I was prepared for. He is basing his "victory" on the replies. this is akin to saying Orlando won last night because they were ahead 24-22 after one quarter. All will be explained. rexhamer was proven to use flawed logic in our debate, and he doesn't even address any point where I proved it. He ignores a continued argument that I have him beat in because he simply quit the debate. He has been invited to continue it, and has refused.

Also, there is a deleted post right above mine, made by a mod. I would appreciate it if it was restored.

[BackdoorJesus]

hahaha fine I'll restore my post, even though I think it should have gone in the smack talk thread...but since you asked so nicely...

[michaeljohn]

Are you fucking kidding me? You're still on this pedantic rant?

Wow...you sure spend a lot of time rehashing this bullshit.

Have fun with that while the rest of us enjoy watching the Lakers crush Orlando in the Finals.

You do recall Orlando, right? Those are the guys that knocked your candyass Celtics out in the fucking semifinals. No problem for the Lakers though it appears.

See ya next year...when your team might matter again.

Oh and as far as your "case" goes; you can rest it, but the jury says you lose.
Thanks to BDJ for restoring his post. He has seen the debate, and knows I won it. This is the first time he has offered an opinion here. my refututation to follow promptly.

[michaeljohn]

Before I get started, Let’s summarize what’s wrong with rexhamer’s new article:

One: Flawed logic. (Just like his last blog!)
Two: An uneducated conclusion based upon collection and interpretation of data in violation of strict and set standards and principals. (His naivety with how he blindly presents his case is very sad indeed!)

What’s even more remarkable and is rexhamer’s claim here that he has overwhelming internet support the Celtics are superior! This is something he accused me of earlier at another site, but we agreed to disagree on it. His statement will be utterly and completely refuted.

I will show I won both the other debate and now this one. I won the first by exposing his flawed logic and “Cherry Picked” statistics by creating a scorecard free from bias and his speculation. We all know how rexhamer is against speculation yet as shown below, he insists in keeping his speculation and theory in the argument! I have never seen such hypocrisy in my life!

What really constitutes an internet debate? Side A makes a point, side B offers a rebuttal. Eventually, one side comes out on top on each point when the other side either has no answer or concedes that issue. If an observer offers an opinion at a stage of the debate when the full argument isn’t seen, can we trust an opinion like that? We can’t, it’s unreliable. Try sending a jury to reach a verdict before the defense has presented its case! Sorry, mistrial. rexhamer relies on this flawed logic to prove his case. It’s like declaring the Orlando Magic winners of game 1 vs. the Lakers in the current NBA finals after one quarter because they were ahead 24-22. We all know the game isn’t over until it’s over! rexhamer wants you to believe otherwise!

Once again, rexhamer wants to set the rules for the debate. He seems to think that he can just ignore what I say and claim refutation by offering up more flawed logic, in short, this latest article!

See, I provided evidence rexhamer’s arguments in his last blog were all based upon flawed logic and speculation and he has done nothing to counter this notion. In fact, he avoids this entirely and presents us with what? A new argument filled with more flawed logic! My last article refuted his last one entirely point by point and remains unchallenged. He ran away! What kind of debating partner is he? Well for one, he is uneducated on the key point of his new argument! I am sure anyone that is familiar with the topic I will address later will simply cringe when they see his claims! rexhamer has proven one thing without a doubt: He is an embarrassment to the fan base of the Boston Celtics!

I repeat his entire new article, excepting a portion that won’t be needed, it was totally destroyed. Brevity is a good thing.

In order to “stay on point” regarding this discussion of Celtics vs. Lakers, I figure it is best to simply start a new thread. I am sure many of you have little interest in this debate, but an accusation of lying has been made towards me and I take that seriously. In addition, given the number of insults MJ has thrown my way, I will take great satisfaction in administering the coup de grace to his cherished Lakers argument here in front of everyone at Webrats. I am not sure of the posting capacity, and there is a lot of info to come, so I will post in small increments.

Yep, I already posted proof of rexhamer’s lies. His lies will be explained below. First off, let’s separate lies from smack. If I say I kicked his ass in the debate, that’s smack and open to interpretation. That’s also the Webrats philosophy, and how we post here. However, there is one key point I made in our debate that I can claim victory in, and rexhamer has confirmed it. He never fails to own himself! 20 years ago, it was no contest who was the better franchise between the Lakers and the Celtics, it was Boston. Today, opinion is mixed, it’s open for debate. I stated repeatedly that the fact I made it an argument was something I was proud of. rexhamer’s own collected statistics prove people agree with me on that point!

The accusation of lying is based on the fact that both of us have claimed victory. Therefore it should be simple to conclude that whoever is the clear victor in this debate is telling the truth, and whoever is the clear loser is the liar. I shall be vindicated in this manner.

Let’s get the lying part out of the way. I posted it in the smack talk thread, so certainly he should have seen it. He is incorrect in where the lying part is to be found.

This part really made me laugh:

Besides - nobody else cares anyways. You just cannot stomach the thought that you were bested in an Internet argument, so you keep trying to find an audience that might be taken in by speculation, misinformation and faulty logic.

Dude, you had your ass handed to you on a platter, and you lie through your teeth. I took all speculation out, and proved how all of your logic was flawed many times over! These are things I can prove. You cannot prove what I quoted of you. It's impossible and you know it.

rexhamer will be owned in this matter. He also got it wrong separating what is lying, and what is smack. More flawed logic on his part. Also, my replies below will show there is a clear loser, and it’s him, despite of his victory claim! His conclusion is not one at all. This has been explained above, and will be again in detail later.

And just to be clear for everyone – there were five separate and lengthy blogs posted one the “other” site, alternating between MJ and me. To avoid confusion, I will refer to them by number and author; i.e., the first blog is Blog 1(MJ), the second would be Blog 2(Rex), etc.

Thanks for this clarification, it will help me destroy your argument.

When I was first formulating this reply, I thought about going point-by-point with a few rebuttals, but it is clear that nobody is interested in that level of detail. I thought about showing a few examples of MJ’s flaccid argument, such as the fact that his “scorecard” includes Lakers advantages of more wins and fewer losses in conference championships, yet only show Finals wins as an advantage for the Celtics. Where are the Finals losses of the Lakers? Clearly, the results of the NBA Finals carry much more significance than the conference championships.

Gee, the Celtics hold only one advantage, that’s why only their title edge is listed. I refuted the 17-3, 9-2, and 14-15 individually with logic and proved they also didn’t belong as they are speculation on his part! He still hasn’t argued with me on that!

I also thought about pointing out the fact that MJ has teased us with his new concept of the Inevitable Exception to the Rule (IETTR). I presumed he was going to provide some examples of exceptions that disprove “rules” that he claims I stated. However, even though he references the IETTR a few times (even here at Webrats he posted something about it), he never actually provides a single exception to any rule! Not a one. He says there out there, but the self-proclaimed king of Internet research cannot provide any examples!

Well, in my article, I sure did. rexhamer really lacks reading comprehension. Does he want to tell them how many other things I wrote that he ignored? I had to repeat myself many times! Here it is again, *sigh*

One well known example of how the IEttR came into play in a trial was during the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Detective Mark Fuhrman was asked if he ever used or called someone the “N” word. He said no (as in never). The defense then came in with the IEttR and blew his credibility right out of the water. That was the fly in the ointment and Detective Mark Fuhrman was painted into a corner.

See, my whole point of IEttR is because rexhamer makes his points using always or never scenarios. In this case it was left up to him to prove that every champion with the most titles is always the most successful because that is exactly what he claims:

michaeljohn: The burden is on him to prove it, not me! Remember, Mathematicians must back up their theorems with proofs.

rexhamer: “But michaeljohn says that it is not set in stone that “He with the most titles is the best”. I say, “Why not”?”

michaeljohn: The burden is on him to prove it, not me! Remember, Mathematicians must back up their theorems with proofs.

I was thinking of pointing out that he is incorrect when he claims I have refuted the majority of the categories of his scorecard (and let us not forget – this is HIS scorecard, based on categories that are relevant in HIS opinion). I have not dismissed them; I have just diminished their importance as many of them deal with regular season results that have not translated into championship results. MJ has even concurred with this notion regarding the relevance of 60-win seasons. Instead of addressing the point at hand, he ignores it and weakly offers a criticism of my use of the term “gaudy”.

He never offered a scorecard, so I had to construct one for him, based on what he posted. Everywhere I listed a Lakers advantage, he claimed it was refuted. Now he says diminished. Isn’t it up to the reader to determine how they value the numerous non-title advantages the Lakers own over the Celtics? So, I could only construct a scorecard based on what he said. As far as “gaudy” goes, the word has negative connotations. He still hasn’t offered up a better word to use instead of it.

And I was also thinking of noting that he does not include the Celtics significant 9-2 edge in head-to-head as it is just my opinion. But let’s all note how often MJ and other Lakers fans have proclaimed during the course of this season that they wanted to meet the Celtics in the Finals. Not just that they wanted to win a championship, but they wanted it to be against their dominant rival. Even yesterday, on the eve of the Finals, Euro-weenie Sasha Vucovich was quoted, “We wanted the Celtics”. Lakers fans and even Lakers players themselves are all cognoscente of wanting to put a dent in 9-2.

Because 9-2 is already refuted, it's speculation, and doesn’t belong.

I could easily have gone though MJ’s entire final blog and refuted all his points for the third time if I chose to. But I will demonstrate that it is completely unnecessary.

This makes me laugh. Each of my blogs offered new evidence which hedismissed as already refuted. Again I say, how can you refute something without even addressing it? You can’t, it’s impossible. Your credibility is fading fast. Also, since you can easily refute it, why haven’t you? As it stands, you have a lot of egg on your face, your blog was annihilated and destroyed.

It has been obvious from the start that neither MJ nor I were going to have our minds changed or concede this argument. And on the other site, with more activity than Webrats, Celtics and Lakers fans fall predictably in line with their team’s allegiances (except for one Lakers fan who has alternated between his support for the Celtics and the Lakers. I don’t know what to make of him!). The true measurement of success in this argument can only be derived from examining the conclusions of neutral fans in their replies to our separate blogs. These neutral fans are objective and unbiased, with no preconceived attachment to either side of this argument. Even MJ agrees with this. But more on that in a moment.

Yep, plenty more on this from me in a moment too. It kills his entire case.

To that end, I have reviewed the replies to all five blogs and compiled a tabulation of the number of responses that have taken a specific position for either MJ’s case or mine. I have discounted trolls, replies of smack talk only, anyone who merely replied “Go Lakers” or “Go Celtics” without indicating their opinion of the question at hand (these were equal anyway). I have also discounted any Lakers fans who merely said the Lakers have been more successful in the last 40 years without expressing an opinion of the full history of the NBA. This debate is not about the last 40 years.

Yeah, but much of rexhamer’s hypocritical argument is based on selecting the most favorable of the 60 years of the Celtics and creating primary advantages with them. Let me repeat the death blow to Cherry Picking from my last article:

1) Cherry Picking is an attempt to select the cream of the crop from statistics to gain an unfair advantage. Let me give two simple examples, with a little humor added in.


“The Lakers’ record in games when they lead by 10 or more points with 1 minute or less on the clock is 100-0.” Obviously this is a very misleading statement, and will yield no significant advantage.


“The Clippers’ record in games when they lead by 10 or more points with 1 minute or less on the clock is 100-0.” Aside from being misleading, I am not too certain if the Clippers can find 100 games meeting this criteria, and even if they could, I am not sure they won them all! What Celtics_55 does with his “Cherry Picking” is select the best results he can from Celtics history and attempts to create a primary advantage with them. This is in direct contradiction to his statement that we are examining the entire history of the NBA.

As a reminder, the five blogs go, 1 to 5: MJ-Rex-MJ-Rex-MJ. First off I will list overall supporters, even if they are identified as a fan of either team. This was made possible either from information in their public profile (which lists favorite teams) or could be reasonably deduced from how they replied. I have not counted multiple replies to the same blog. However, I have counted each respondent per blog as consistent support (or lack thereof) is a consideration. (Since I first examined this months ago for Blog 1(MJ), the numbers have changed a bit due to additional replies and the fact that I was better able to identify Lakers and Celtics fans.) The results, by blog:

Blog 1 2 3 4 5
Lakers 10 – 2 – 3 – 1 – 1 Total = 17
Celtics 9 – 8 – 5 – 7 – 8 Total = 37

Yikes! 37 – 17 is a rout! I realize these numbers are not extensive in their quantity, but in the immortal words if Bill Belichick – “they are what they are”. And remember – I should put an asterisk next to the Lakers figure for Blog 4(Rex) as that is the one where MJ made not two, as I thought earlier, but FIVE separate pleas to his fellow Lakers fans on their home page to come and submit a reply to show support for his case.

Here’s how they went:

1) 2/27/09 - Meanwhile, I am tearing [Rex]'s blog apart. He is trying to set the rules of the debate. Anything goes! Find his blog, it's linked in mine, bookmark it, and back me up. I will win this for us!
2) 2/27/09 - Guys don't forget to support me as I destroy [Rex]'s blog. Add a comment, it's full of Celtics fans. He thinks he is beating me, and he isn't! I am exposing him left and right!
3) 2/28/09 - Please show your support for me fellow Lakers fans in his blog with your replies of encouragement. I am winning and will win this for us.
4) 3/1/09 - Hey Lakers fans! I am continuing the fight to prove the Lakers are the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA by refuting [Rex]'s blog. ….. You guys are invited to give me and the Lakers support in his blog.
5) 3/1/09 - Meanwhile, I am busy destroying [Rex]'s blog. Have a look and reply with support for the Lakers!
Five separate pleas for help over 3 days, and the result: not a single Lakers fan responded. That’s right – zero, zilch, zip, none, nil, nada, a goose egg, the big donut, a complete whitewash, a shutout! MJ says there was plenty of support for him on the Lakers home page. Well, if there was, apparently they were not that supportive to take a few moments and a few keystrokes to show it!

I had countless instances of support. Not everyone posts in a blog. Not everyone posts replies here at Webrats, it’s something I have been fighting for years. Certainly you have seen how I banned many leechers who never bothered to type a thanks. I probably also told you, if not, I’ll repeat it here, my first article, back in December wasn’t getting replies and was of extreme interest to Lakers fans. I kept after the Lakers masses to reply in that as well, and it helped. Now, what’s so important about a reply? If it’s here at Webrats, we ask a reply or a hit of the thanks button if something is downloaded. At the blog site, a reply tells you it’s been read, and that’s why we write, to be heard. Also, when I posted my first Lakers/Celtics blog in January, I was asking for replies. 5 of them showed up in my original one, not in the current one! Why? Easy to explain. I ask for a reply on main page. Member clicks my profile. This gives all my articles. They scroll down, seeing no replies. They have to click a link to see the replies. They read the whole thing, were at the bottom and replied to the older blog! Add 5 more to the Lakers’ count on the first blog.

Now, let’s analyze the reply to view ratios. Here at Webrats, a thread usually gets less than 1% of replies in relation to views. I had it much higher, but have been too busy to ban leechers. At least the thanks button helps a bit. I used to get close to 100% reply to download ratio. Now it’s under 25% counting thanks and replies. Check for yourself. Best on the internet for porn. Check that too.

Now, let’s examine who looks at news items at the other site. There is no view count, but there are two possible ways to guess. On the main NBA page is a link to an article for game one of the finals. Click that, you get a box score and the start of the article. Click the link to see the full story. As of the time of me writing this, there are 1,115 comments and the story is 14 hours old.. There is also a poll that has 97,024 votes in it. That means that about 11% of the people who voted, posted a reply. However, there is no way to tell how many viewed the article. Look in the bonus section of girl pics, I have a current poll, but it allows multiple votes. Not many have voted, but plenty more have viewed. Same with any poll you can find here. People just don’t vote. So, it’s possible 1 million people or so have viewed that article. What can we infer from this as to how many people viewed our blogs? Well, they aren’t on the main NBA page. They are tucked away within individual team pages. The shelf life of our blogs has ranged from a few hours to several days. Once a 6th blog is posted, our blogs get archived and no longer are front page material. So, let’s just pick a random number, and say a blog that is on main page for several days gets 10,000 views. Keep in mind, viewing is free, replying requires registration. That last step is a major hurdle.

There is only one way to measure what people think. It is done with probability and statistical analysis, based upon pure random samples. If it isn’t random, it simply cannot be trusted!

Read this article about random sampling: Random sample - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sample) this part should do for explanation in this argument: Random sampling- all members of the population have an equal chance of being selected as part of the sample.

If you could have asked Dewey why he didn’t defeat President Truman in 1948, he would tell you that the pollsters that said he would win were situated in places where they were likely to encounter Republican voters to survey! (Libraries, Banks, and so on). There is an entire course taught on probability and statistics that is required of mathematics, business, and social science (including psychology) undergrad majors. It can also be pursued for an undergraduate or graduate degree.

Is the sample of votes rexhamer gives above truly random? No it isn’t, and guess who distorted it? We both did! First, the blogs can only link to 20 of the 30 NBA team., Although I did that many, he didn’t. His latest blog went to 3 teams other than LA and Boston, and all hate the Lakers with a passion! His first only went to 12 teams other than ours and most hate the Lakers! So his replies are extremely non-random. I sent mine to the better team pages, ones that were likely to hate the Lakers. I don’t only want Lakers fans to see it, (They will agree with me) I want our rivals to see it, and see what they have to say! I am not looking for votes, I am looking for justification of my argument! The fact that a significant portion of the NBA fans were excluded from having a link on their main page further generates significant and case-killing statistical errors into the data interpretation.

Several of the respondents who are Celtics fans were brought there specifically by m, further skewing the bias. I simply replied to their blogs and invited them to mine. I am looking for someone to attempt to refute me, because rexhamer sure hasn’t. tannah, and Lisa are examples of Celtics fans I dragged in for the view. I also went to several neutral sites with our fight and got a few more neutral people to chime in. I recognize screennames in the replies to my blog from sites I spread the news. If no one refutes me, then I am correct! The next proven statistical flaw is the sample size. It is proven mathematically that the sample size is simply too small to make a definite hypothesies, and even if it was larger, the possibility of a Type I or Type II error persists. These are defined as rejecting or accepting a hypothesis when the opposite result is correct. Now, if rexhamer wants to go against proven mathematical criteria and formula developed by the foremost mathematicians in history and have you believe his interpretation of the replies is correct, then please line up and buy this great swampland I have in Florida. I also have to laugh that when rexhamer was after me about using theory and speculation in a debate, he was quick to point out the writings of Plato and Aristotle and how they had proven ages ago that speculation has no room in a debate. Now he wants to challenge the great mathematical minds of history!

Also I wish to add, it may not be possible to have truly neutral fans. It is well-known that the Lakers are the most hated team in the NBA. Here is one link with that opinion.

Hating Lakers one thing fans often agree on (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/Hating_Lakers_one_thing_fans_often_agree_on.html)

This can be further verified looking at any sports board that has pages for the NBA teams. The Lakers page always has the most activity and the hate for them is strong! If anything, we have proved it is impossible to interpret replies as fact for who is the better franchise!

I will add one more thing about random samples. In a recent graduate school course I took, my team had to prepare a mock research paper and demonstrate how our hypothesis would be tested on a truly random sample population. If we couldn’t do that, we would fail the project, and that was explained in the grading rubric. Pity the poor PHD candidate who conducts an actual field research project without random sampling, he will never get his doctorate. rexhamer doesn’t even get a cookie for his work!

more to follow:

[michaeljohn]

And in classic MJ fashion, he posts this on the Lakers page after I pointed out to him that it was obvious no Lakers fan was going to make the small effort to show their support:


3/2/09 - Have look if you wish, but don't reply. We don't want [Rex] to think I am desperate for support, I will win this on my own!
What a joke! Let’s not forget how MJ bragged after his first blog that Celtics fans had not come forward to debate him in his blog. Therefore, we will hold Lakers fans to the same standard. If they did not come forward and reply to a blog, but meekly stayed in the comfortable confines of the Lakers pages, they cannot be counted.
This is wrong and misleading. Celtics fans replied to my blog, but they didn’t attempt a refutation. Only you did. As a matter of fact, I challenged just about all of them with the arguments they made with more proof I was correct and all they did was vanish. You even claimed they provided rebuttals to me, but they didn’t! Who says the people who didn't reply to a blog can't be counted? You do. We all know how your logic is flawed everywhere, so go back and count them. However, you don't need to as your tabulations have been refuted!

I will also note for the record that not one single time did I go on the Celtics pages to recruit support. I have not been a member long enough to develop such relationships, and frankly, I would never stoop that low. I made one post each time to notify members that my blogs were available. Nothing more.

Ok, now that his interpretation of the data is completely and permanently refuted, let’s expose the other huge flaw in it all, and again, it’s one I warned him about in replies to his blog. As the blog war has continued, my case has developed. His stubbornness has not only enabled me to further refute his work, it has allowed me to improve my own case. rexhamer is making conclusions when the game is still in the first quarter! Now, let’s look at what happened with my last bloge, the one that destroyed his. The one he has never challenged. Now, did all of the people who replied in all blogs see my last one? No they didn’t. I made the post early in the AM on April 23rd. It takes a few hours for it to show up on the main pages, but it never did on the Lakers or the Celtics page. Why? Because on that day, five other people promptly posted their own blogs soon after mine! 5 blogs on the main page is the limit, then the oldest and bottom one gets archived when a new one is posted. Very few people saw my most powerful post ever! It was the one that point-by-point utterly refuted rexhamer’s blog. The same one that stands as a victory for me on all counts as he has yet to attempt to refute it. What victory did I achieve? I reaffirmed it is a debate. I refuted his 17-3, 9-2, and 14-15 “”Cherry Picked” statistics, and proved they didn’t belong in the argument. These were the same points he made here as his case oh so many months ago. Now, does anyone care about this lengthy argument besides us? We both pretty much agreed everyone gave up on it ages ago. So it really doesn’t matter to me few people saw my last blog. If rexhamer wants to keep the fight going over there, I assure many people will see my next refutation!

MJ can run outside at any time to scream his frustration.

rexhamer may now go outside and scream, pull his hair out, kick himself in the arse, bark at the moon, consider himself owned and schooled, pray few Celtics fans don’t consider him a disgrace, and ask himself why oh why did he ever think he could best me in an argument. Sorry, I told rexhamer ages ago I always win internet arguments. This article is yet another example of this.

And here is the coup de grace I promised. Take note of the results of neutral observers to Blog 5(MJ). This is the blog he claims has refuted all my points. My examples noted above aside for the moment, you will find that neutral replies have come in at 5-1 for the Celtics. That’s 5 out of 6, that’s 83% in favor of the Celtics after reviewing and evaluating Blog 5(MJ). MJ has repeatedly whined that I haven’t refuted his blog.

I DON’T NEED TO!

Uh, yes you do. You can’t ignore all your flawed logic this simply. You fight or you quit. Desperate attempts such as this thread of yours have pretty much taken away whatever sympathy and credibility you may have gained here. Wouldn’t the other site love to see this side of the story! I suggest you fight me here if you plan to continue, and not there! Whoops, I have since discovered he did take the fight to the other site. Bad news for him, bad news indeed when Celtics fans see what became of their champion of the blog war and how easily and disgracefully he fell.

He’s doing my job for me; i.e., winning converts over to the Celtics cause! What do you call a blog that has the exact opposite affect of its author’s intent? A complete and utter failure! It must be painfully obvious to MJ that nobody is buying what he is selling. (Even GM salespersons are doing better these days!) I should probably thank him for doing my job for me. In fact, I should encourage him to write another blog, maybe the results will be 10-1 in favor of the Celtics!

Uh, yes you do. You can’t ignore all your flawed logic this simply. You fight or you quit. Desperate attempts such as this thread of yours have pretty much taken away whatever sympathy and credibility you may have gained here. Wouldn’t the other site love to see this side of the story! I suggest you fight me here if you plan to continue, and not there! Whoops, I have since discovered he did take the fight to the other site. Bad news for him, bad news indeed when Celtics fans see what became of their champion of the blog war and how easily and disgracefully he fell.

He’s doing my job for me; i.e., winning converts over to the Celtics cause! What do you call a blog that has the exact opposite affect of its author’s intent? A complete and utter failure! It must be painfully obvious to MJ that nobody is buying what he is selling. (Even GM salespersons are doing better these days!) I should probably thank him for doing my job for me. In fact, I should encourage him to write another blog, maybe the results will be 10-1 in favor of the Celtics!

How am I winning converts over to the Celtics case? I am winning them over to the Lakers side! Everyone believes the Celtics are the better franchise until they see my side of the story! That has to hurt, seeing people choose the Lakers over the Celtics! Your statement I am winning people over to the Celtics side has already been proven false mathematically! More on my new blog you suggest I make: Since it was written, the comparisons have changed. Lakers have another finals appearance, and are in striking distance of another title. First, as of today, it’s 14-17. I think the Celtics are done, and the Lakers will win more titles, it’s what I posted in my 2nd blog, and my prediction:


When it’s 15-17, many more people will agree with me.

When it’s 16-17, a heck of a lot more people will agree with me.

When it’s 17-17, just about everyone will agree with me. Lone exceptions will be Celtics fans diehards that didn’t see this blog.

So, perhaps a new blog is warranted soon, let’s enjoy the finals. 2 titles is not that much. You use misleading statistics anyway, now I know why since you demonstrated your ignorance of them here. You say 3 titles is a 20% lead. 2 titles is about a 13% lead, and 1 title up is about 6%. It drops fast as things are so close! 14-17 is close enough for another look, and 15-17 and 16-17 most certainly are! Especially in light of the Celtics history from 1988-2007! That failed period becomes more magnified as the Lakers draw closer!

Now MJ will probably try to say many of these respondents have concluded that it is all about championships and the Celtics lead the Lakers. It is MJ’s basic premise that 17-14 is so close we must look elsewhere. But if neutral observers are rejecting MJ’s basic premise, they are rejecting his entire argument (and not all of them claim merely the championship lead as the reason for their opinion, many of them have rejected other facets of his argument).

Your interpretation of the data has failed, outlined above.

He may also point out that none of these respondents have provided a point-by-point rebuttal. One does not need to provide a point-by-point rebuttal to disagree with something. For instance, MJ may post a 5,000 word blog “proving” the world is flat. An interested reader may simply review all the relevant points, weigh their validity, and come to an intelligent and common sense conclusion that they disagree. A lengthy rebuttal is not necessary.

A rebuttal means to offer something up to refute an argument. Disagreement is an opinion. Without a rebuttal, it remains disagreement. Opinions can’t be proved, you said this yourself at the close of your last blog:

The problem we have is that, try as we may, you cannot “prove” an opinion. You can certainly provide backup reasoning to validate your opinion, and can attempt to win others over, but in the end you cannot prove any one opinion more than another person’s conflicting opinion. I suggest we respect each other’s opinions and agree to disagree.
The figures I have provided are an honest, accurate, undeniable and irrefutable tabulation of all the replies to the blogs. There is no opinion or speculation relevant to these results. They are not “misleading stats”, in fact, they are just the opposite.

I’ll use this against you below.

So after 5 blogs, tens of thousands of words, dozens of replies, endless points and counter-points, the votes are in and the polls are closed. The jury of neutral observers has weighed the evidence and the verdict is clearly in favor of the Celtics by an 18-4 margin. I can accurately and confidently proclaim that there is overwhelming consensus on the Internet that the Boston Celtics are the most successful franchise in NBA history.

So when the results of any contest are 18-4, it is clear that when the team/person with the “18” claims victory, they are telling the truth. When the team/person with only “4” claims victory, they are either delusional or lying. I’ll let others be the judge of making that determination.

Game, set, match: Rexhamer!

I rest MY case.

Your case failed, that has been proven above. It is also ridiculous. Again, I point out, I win because I made a debate out of it. I am also winning because your entire blog has been refuted and all flawed logic you used to construct your arguments has been exposed. You have done absolutely nothing to challenge the points I made except to create another case that runs away from the main issues and is based on totally flawed logic. Speaking of flawed logic, let’s see what you had to say about it in your last blog, before I proved you base your entire case on using it:

And finally I point out that in michaeljohn’s initial reply to my original blog, he claims he found it “riddled with flawed logic”. Although he never actually provides a single example of flawed logic, it is important to note that he announces his contention that “flawed logic” is bad for an argument. Lo and behold, we finally agree on something. I was certainly going to make this point myself, but the fact that michaeljohn has introduced the notion that

Flawed Logic = Bad Argument

confirms a key point in this discussion. michaeljohn may live to regret the day he typed those words!

Well, I think it is rexhamer that has lived to regret those words. I proved it in my last blog, and I have proved it here.

So let’s see where we stand. rexhamer now has two articles I have completely refuted, his blog and this one.

He has two choices. He can debate them both, or he can walk away. If he debates them, he has to refute all the flawed logic I have exposed in both arguments, and his speculation in the first. He is a nobody here. No one will care I beat him down.

He has reposted this thread at the other site in my blog. I made a recommendation in his blog what to do regarding that. Now, all I need to know is what is he going to do next. I welcome a debate, but don’t mind if he lets it go. I do have a nice Boston blog I wish to post. However, its fate is up in the air until this matter is resolved. Why don’t the Boston fans tell him to give the fight up. He needs to admit he lost both debates, (admitting defeat in the debate doesn’t mean either team is better, that is decided by personal opinion) and allow me the time to construct something that will be extremely appreciated by Boston fans.


Let me quote him one more time from the replies to his last blog, on April 15:

You may ask - how do we end this? If you have any ideas, I am all ears. Yet I would point out that, at the end of my blog, I was the one who offered that we respect each others opinions and agree to disagree. It is michaeljohn that has rejected that notion.

Well, of course I had to reject the notion to agree to disagree because he ignored my refutation to his blog. Thus my last blog was written and still remains ignored. However, since it is clear he wants out, and my suggestion he admits defeat will do nicely. This gets the Boston fans my promised article. I close with a simple quote that rexhamer should pay heed to in this regard.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. (or the one)
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities. (Captain James T. Kirk, in The Wrath of Khan).

I rest my case.

[michaeljohn]

Well, there you go rexhamer, you just got :owned:

Opinions from others are welcome.

[rexhamer]

That's it? That's the best you've got?

Funny, I don't feel clobbered.

This will be so easy. But in the meantime.....

[rexhamer]

NEWS BULLETIN!!!
NEWS BULLETIN!!

The Associated Press announced today that former U.S. Senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain has filed a lawsuit against the United States of America demanding that he be declared President. McCain’s attorney, Jerome Horwitz, a founding partner of the prestigious Washington D.C. law firm of Howard, Fine & Howard, now practicing for the Phoenix firm of Dewey, Cheatham & Howe, said, “Senator McCain believes that an inadequate number of voters cast ballots in the November 2008 election, so those results should not count. In addition, my client proposed his own economic stimulus plan in which he has pointed out the many examples of faulty logic and hypocrisies of Barack Obama’s plan presented during the campaign. President, er, …I mean, Mr. Obama never refuted Senator McCain’s plan.”

When a reporter asked Mr. Horwitz that it appeared to be hypocritical on the part of Senator McCain to submit nomination papers agreeing to abide by the results of a fair and open election and now go back on that commitment, Mr. Horwitz replied, “I don’t give a rat’s arse what you think of our campaign tactics. It’s politics, you know – anything goes.”

During opening arguments today in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, emergency medical personnel had to be called in when a number of justices couldn’t catch their breath as they were laughing so hard.

The case was immediately dismissed.

When pressed for a comment, President Obama could only add, “Look, all I know is that the citizens of this country had the opportunity to hear both candidate’s plans and an overwhelming number voted for me. Senator McCain lost the election fair and square. He has to learn to deal with it.”

After the dismissal, Mr. Horwitz exclaimed, " It must have been because my jacket was the color of Lakers purple."

[michaeljohn]

rexhamer, you are absolutely nuts. Stick to the topic. debate my refutations, don't go off on another far fetched tangent. this is what you did with your article above and it got you nowhere.

See, the issue here is not which team people pick, it's who won the debates.

Before my article the vote among fans was 100% in favor of the Celtics
After my article, who knows what it was and who cares. Let's say 85% Celtics just for the fun of it.
That in itself proves my point, that I made a debate about it. The 15% that choose Lakers feel they are the best franchise, that's their opinion. And we believe it. We both agree opinions can't be proved. My scorecard is fair and square, yours isn't. I won the debate over there and I won this one. It stays like that until you refute what's on the table.

Now, as far as a scorecard for people to debate, I presented one free from your personal opinion and your speculation. That is what you have to debate, because I refuted every "Cherry Picked" Celtics edge you wanted to force into the scorecard. I even note you don't need them to get people to stay on the Celtics side. As I said, you must be awfully insecure about the Lakers gaining ground if you think you need the extra edges.

So far, I haven't posted anything on the other site, I was waiting to see what you would do here first. Remember, no one cares there, and no one cares here.

Deal with my points you have ignored if you wish to continue posting here. You now have 2 articles to go through, point by point. My last blog, and this one. You are on the extreme defensive in both as I have exposed your flawed logic and your speculation. I am not going to waste my time refuting whatever other tangent you have planned if it avoids the issues on the stage. I anticipated your tactics to this thread and told you that I knew what you were planning, and I used some of the same refutations here that I told you about there. I just saved the mathematical theory part for its devastating effect. You are so predictable. I already have an idea where you plan to go next and it too will be easy to refute.

Meanwhile, I would suggest you look at my Dickens/Kirk quote above. It seems you feel the needs of the one (you) outweigh the needs of the many (Boston fans). They want my promised Boston blog, they don't want to see you carry the fight on.

[BackdoorJesus]

:drama:

[rexhamer]

Been busy and must go out of town. Will get back to you next week. I will have plenty to say about this notion:


See, the issue here is not which team people pick, it's who won the debates.

[michaeljohn]

Been busy and must go out of town. Will get back to you next week. I will have plenty to say about this notion:

See, here's the deal you just don't get.

1) I made an article
2) You countered it with refutations.
3) I refuted that.
4) you objected to my use of theory, and didn't even deal with new evidence.
5) I took out the theory and left in everythng else that refuted your blog.

As it stands, your refutations are refuted and this thread is refuted. There is no way you can use the "opinions" others gave here to say you won. Don't even think about taking this to another tangent. Deal with my last blog and this thread, or pack it in. Period.

You have these problems to face:
1) Flawed logic
2) New evidence you never dealt with
3) Hypocrisy in how you argue
4) Speculation by you to warrant siginficant categories.

Also, one key question,. Do you think anyone here cares?

[michaeljohn]

Well, let's drive rexhamer a little nuttier. Seems the Beantowners may all share flawed logic and hypocrisy. I can't vouch for the statistical validity of these ESPN polls, but the state results are compelling as they appear. They do show regional trends, and they do have a vastly larger participation than our articles generated:

If most championships means best, how come New England folks are picking Red Auerbach over Phil Jackson as best coach in NBA history?

clicky: ESPN.com Poll Results by State (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=nba&pollId=72958)

Here's a similar poll, plenty of regional bias here towards Lombardy and Auerbach:

clicky: ESPN.com Poll Results by State (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=nba&pollId=73070)

When the score was Lakers 14 titles to Celtics 17 titles, and the article linked in my signature was written a poll generated by ESPN generated Lakers 46% Celtics 54%.

clicky: ESPN.com Poll Results by State (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=nba&pollId=73048)

Since the Lakers won title #15, the Lakers have pulled ahead in the rankings of the fans. Just as I predicted. As the Lakers get closer to the Celtics, the people switch to the Lakers side (Note, this poll remains on the ESPN page so votes are constantly being added. The other polls above have disappeared and you can't find them!:

clicky: From ESPN June 11: Ranking the NBA Franchises from best to worst in history - WebRats Fun and stupidity at its best!! (http://forums.webrats.com/showthread.php?p=3168088)

rexhamer, you not only have to refute me, you have to refute ESPN! The debate is official now, it wasn't 20 years ago!

[Anibal]

I really wanted to read everything and then make an inteligent and well though remark but its just way too much information for me to process and i spend my day reading so i didnt want to read that much.

I have been a fan of the Lakers since the first time i watched basketball. Ill say why i think that the Lakers are the best Franchise in the history of the Sport. Celtics might have won more championships but the Lakers are better in everything else, more playoff wins more conference championships and more important a lot more super stars. Not to mention that 11 of those 17 titles (im pretty sure its 17) belong to what would be safe to say one celtic team. Where the Lakers have always and every decade had a competitive team able of wining championships. The celtics if it werent because they traded in Garnett and Allen would have won nothing this decade and would have remained the pathetic little team they where with Pierce and Walker as their stars.

That being said, my favourite player back in the day was Kevin Garnett, it was pretty obvious that he was going to win a championship at some point. Celtics are just lucky that they got him.

[michaeljohn]

Been busy and must go out of town. Will get back to you next week. I will have plenty to say about this notion:

Well, waiting for you to come back...I have dropped a few posts in your blog updating you on things you will find here, so if you've accessed your email, you know this.

rexhamer
whore
Last Activity: 06-10-2009 01:49 PM

I have further evidence of Boston fans giving it up to the Lakers as best, on a Boston site. It is certainly impossible I created those accounts as you accused me of here when one guy threw in the towel.

It's time to accept that this is now a debate. I refuted 9-2 and 17-3, two of your first main arguments here. I refuted them independently and proved they are speculation on your part and don't belong in the argument. 14-15 I refuted as well, but since it's now 15-15, your whole argument against that was shot full of holes. I also refuted this thread.

I don't think you understand the difference between a disagreement and a refutation. A disagreement isn't a refutation. A refutation takes fact and uses itself against a disagreement to prove a point.

So, time for you to give up this fight. My refutations have been there for two months and all you have done is go off on a failed tangent. Look where that got you. Also, look at everything else that has popped up that makes my case stronger, and is influencing opinion.

You can believe your team is the best, but you cannot believe or prove you won this debate. Time for you to admit the latter. Don't worry, no one knows you here and doesn't give a shit.

Oh, by the way...I found a major sport right here in America where the team with the most titles most certainly isn't the best. I am kicking myself for not remembering this earlier. At least you can stop your hunt now to prove most championships always means best.

[rexhamer]

I've been busy and am still working on replies to your comments and the ESPN poll and Hollinger formula.

But first things first - congratulations to the Lakers and their fans. Gotta give credit where credit is deserved.

By the way - will there be an asterisk next to 2009 because of KG's injury, like you suggested last year for Bynum's?

[michaeljohn]

I've been busy and am still working on replies to your comments and the ESPN poll and Hollinger formula.
:duh: Gonna keep going? Remember, a disagreement is not a refutation, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time, including your own.


But first things first - congratulations to the Lakers and their fans. Gotta give credit where credit is deserved.

By the way - will there be an asterisk next to 2009 because of KG's injury, like you suggested last year for Bynum's?
Thanks, and why should there be an asterisk because of KG being out? We proved this year we could beat the Celtics when they were at full strength, and playing their best ball. Remember, we broke two winning streaks, 19 and 12 games. In case you forgot about those games see below. Reminder, we won the second without Bynum, basically last year's lineup with Ariza in better shape:

http://uploader.ws/upload/200906/Celtics445.jpg

YouTube - Lakers vs Celtics Game Highlights Christmas Day 2008 (HD) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STLfNZdiwlI)

YouTube - lakers at celtics 2/5/09 overtime game. kobe bryant 26 pts. gasol 24. last second shot !! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUy1w94k_dM)

Besides, why should you worry about the next two seasons anyway? Kevin Ganrett has already guaranteed the Celtics will win the next two titles! :rofl:

Clicky: Garnett looking forward - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2009/06/04/garnett_looking_forward/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Boston+Celtics+news)

Oh, and a Celtics writer and Kobe hater just commited self ownage, see the smack talk thread.

[rexhamer]

When the score was Lakers 14 titles to Celtics 17 titles, and the article linked in my signature was written a poll generated by ESPN generated Lakers 46% Celtics 54%.

clicky: ESPN.com Poll Results by State (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=nba&pollId=73048)


Can you tell us when this Celtics '54-46' poll originated?

I am presuming it was after last year's playoff's but no way to tell from the link.

[rexhamer]

Thanks, and why should there be an asterisk because of KG being out?

Are you denying that you made a post on the blog site several months ago suggesting four NBA seasons that should have asterisks attached to them, one of them being last year (another one was a strike-shortened year). And the reason you cited for last year was Bynum's injury?

Yes or no?

[michaeljohn]

Can you tell us when this Celtics '54-46' poll originated?

I am presuming it was after last year's playoff's but no way to tell from the link.

I meant to clarify when it came out when I posted it, but didn't. It coincided with Hollinger's article, so it was made shortly before the 2009 finals ended. After they ended, Lakers took the lead in the other poll, which is still getting votes regularly. My words kind of imply this, but my bad.

In short, 46-54% poll was fairly inactive quickly. Rank 30 teams is ongoing.
15-17 and the article lead more people to pick Lakers.

Are you denying that you made a post on the blog site several months ago suggesting four NBA seasons that should have asterisks attached to them, one of them being last year (another one was a strike-shortened year). And the reason you cited for last year was Bynum's injury?

Yes or no?

If you say I did, I must have. I also said this, in the archived NBA thread:

Final Score, Lakers 101 Cleveland 91, holding the Cavs to 30 points in the second half.

No Bynum, Kobe was ill. No doubt who the best team in the NBA is, no doubt. I am wondering how on earth this unit didn't win it all last year against the Celtics. Oh well, water under the bridge.

Lamar Odom, you rock! 28 points, and 17 rebounds, both season highs. :)

Phil Jackson started the asterisk talk when he called the 99 Spurs team deserving of one, it was a short year. He probably did it because at the end of the strike his 3 peat Bulls broke up, and to get under their skins when we played them in 2001 and 2002. It's all smack talk. No one is ever going to put an asterisk on a record again. That went out when Maris hit 61 in 162 games as opposed to Babe's 60 in 154. They eventually took it away, Of course, don't quote me, the IEttR applies.

However, we won in Boston and in Cleveland at less than full strength. Lakers would have beaten Boston in 2009 with KG in the lineup. Also, who's to say the Magic wouldn't have beaten Boston anyway with KG in? Also, Cleveland had HCA over Boston as well. However, this is all unknown territory. Any team can pick up a few titles with what ifs. We let the results stand as they did.

Seriously, you take smack way to much to heart. I still can't believe you want to keep this argument going. Remember, you said you couldn't let my old article lie still in case someone happened upon it later and could be influenced because it had speculation in it. Well, your's does too, 9-2 and 17-3 are included by you as primary categories based entirely on speculation! Not to mention the fact I refuted them as well. However, you want to pin the notion on me that I am keeping it going. Pure hypocrisy wrought by the fact it's ok for you to use specualtion, but not me. Look what happened, I took mine out and still refuted your claims.

A couple of quotes to ponder:

The old arguments for Celtics supremacy of 20 years ago simply do not hold up anymore.

The needs of rexhamer outweigh the needs of Boston fans.

[michaeljohn]

I saw this on a Lakers board today:

Obituary:

The Boston Celtics passed away this year. They were so old they had done nothing for 22 years anyway. After a transfusion and a shock from the defibbulation paddles they managed to defeat an injured, upstart Laker team before expiring altogether this year...losing twice to those same but now healthy Lakers...who are now the one and true Champions of the world!!

Send clover leaves in lieu of flowers...they are fresh out of luck.

Their are no plans to resurrect this now defunct sports team as interest in them has waned to the point that nobody cares anyway. (Just check their empty page).

Burial was initially planned, but upon further environmental impact studies it was decided that cremation would be the green way to go.

The Celtic mystic is dead!

The Laker's are the most popular and finest team in the history of the world!!!!

Long live the champions!

[rexhamer]

Oh, by the way...I found a major sport right here in America where the team with the most titles most certainly isn't the best. I am kicking myself for not remembering this earlier. At least you can stop your hunt now to prove most championships always means best.

Well ......... Are you going to keep it a secret?

[michaeljohn]

Well ......... Are you going to keep it a secret?

Why should I tell you? You say you want to keep this fight going but are finding every excuse not to address the issues at hand. Your time is over. Put out or hush up.

You claim you refuted my blog. You refuted nothing, you disagreed with it and stated your opinion. 2 months running now...

I, however, refuted your blog. I exposed it for all of its hypocrisy, flawed logic, and contradictions of your own criterea, i.e. examining the entire history of the NBA.

You came here and lied, I proved that as well. You haven't even apologized for lying. Whatever you post, I will refute that as well. Haven't I shown I do that already?

Your 17-3, 9-2, and 14-15 are refuted independently, and disallowed as they are speculation on your part. The scorecard stands, Lakers hold all significant advantages except for titles. That's the one thing the Celtics still have. Everything else in the scorecard is historical fact. Your last article claimed you refuted all of them. Last I saw you just said you diminished their importance. That's something for a neutral fan to determine, not you, and it certainly doesn't mean a refutation. Hell, it's obvious already the articles didn't go to neutral fans!

Give it up. I won this debate. I proved it is an argument now, where it wasn't 20 years ago, and I beat you at your 3 main points you stated here all those months ago (17-3, 9-2, 14-15). Oh, and this thread, that was a major ass whooping on you. Your mathematical naivety doomed you.

[michaeljohn]

Well, still waiting for rexhamer...Let's see what he had to see at the other site. My last article was posted on April 23rd, here is what he said on May 2, inresponse to me saying the old arguments (17-3, 9-2, 14-15) have been laid to rest for good:


May 2, 2009
6:58 AM "arguments have been laid to rest for good"?

You need to go back and re-read my blog. All your points were addressed and refuted.

I win Internet arguments becuase I do extensive research, post stats to support my case, and publish lengthy articles. You have fallen into the trap of many Lakers fans - you did not read the entire blog. You cannot "cherry pick" the parts of the blog that you want to address.

Go back and read the entire blog.

This is a point where he was mimicking me. As to the highlighted part, I went through it word by word and refuted everything.


May 2, 2009
3:11 PM You need to go back and re-read my blog again.

Just because you say you refuted something doesn't mean it is refuted. My argument is a serious blow to Lakers fans who thought the old arguments didn't hold up anymore. I have proven they still do.

Go back and re-read my blog, only you should read it thoroughly, don't just skim it. All you points are refuted. Your latest blog changes nothing.

We are still waiting for him to "prove" what's in bold. Guess what, he can't! If he tries, I will refute that a well, besides, there is nothing in his blog to back up his claim!

Then there is this gem from this thread:


I could easily have gone though MJ’s entire final blog and refuted all his points for the third time if I chose to. But I will demonstrate that it is completely unnecessary.

First, his second article ignored a lot of new evidence! I had to repeat it! Again, flawed logic on his part, he refutes things without even addressing them! If it was so easy, why didn't he do it? He can't and he knows it. Instead, he crafted this thread, chalk full of nothing but flawed logic and an avoidance of the issues at hand. He even shows his own hypocrisy at several points in thread:

I thought about showing a few examples of MJ’s flaccid argument, such as the fact that his “scorecard” includes Lakers advantages of more wins and fewer losses in conference championships, yet only show Finals wins as an advantage for the Celtics. Where are the Finals losses of the Lakers? Clearly, the results of the NBA Finals carry much more significance than the conference championships.
Hypocrisy in bold. this has been refuted, he has never challenged it and it is his opinion. An opinion is not a refutation.

And here is the coup de grace I promised. Take note of the results of neutral observers to Blog 5(MJ). This is the blog he claims has refuted all my points. My examples noted above aside for the moment, you will find that neutral replies have come in at 5-1 for the Celtics. That’s 5 out of 6, that’s 83% in favor of the Celtics after reviewing and evaluating Blog 5(MJ). MJ has repeatedly whined that I haven’t refuted his blog.
I already proved your tallies mean nothing. Since you can't refute my blog, you tried changing the subject and shot yourself in the foot! Address my blog, quit ducking me!

Oh, and one last comment in my last blog. This cued me in he was going to try to use the replies to the blogs to claim victory. More flawed logic, ending the game in the first quarter! Oh, I said that already!:


May 2, 2009
6:32 PM One time, when I was ten years old, I had an argument with a friend of mine. He said vanilla was the best flavor of ice cream. I said it was chocolate.

We then asked 10 of our friends what they liked and 8 said chocolate. I win arguments because I do research. That is how I have proven that the Celtics are the most successful franchise in NBA history. Even stubborn Lakers fans now agree with me.

You can concede any time. There is no shame in being No. 2!
Apparently you don't have a clue how to do statistical research, you got owned on that! your proof: :rofl: :owned:

I could say a lot more here, but let's examine the whole story....

If my points for Lakers supremacy are incorrect, and the overstatements by rexhamer on Celtics success are actually true, why hasn't he, or any other Celtics fan stepped forward to prove this? I asked him this earlier, and he said maybe they don't want to take the time! Crap, something as important as finding out the Celtics are now number two to the Lakers is extremely important to Boston fans.

Thousands of Celtics fans have seen the war. No one has refuted me. rexhamer can't win this fight, he has proven that. I need to find a better debating partner. Who's up to the task?

Give it up rexhamer, you are beaten. You can still believe the Celtics are number on even though they aren't.

[rexhamer]

Let’s begin with an acknowledgement – since we both “rested our cases” prior to the completion of the 2009 NBA playoffs, I will refer to the numbers we have been debating for a year now; i.e., “17-14”, etc. We can deal with new numbers later when I address the Hollinger rankings and the ESPN poll.

First – some housekeeping items to note.

1.
We agreed to disagree on “Overwhelming Consensus”


Actually this is factually incorrect. What you said on 4/18/09 was:

It isn’t important to the debate. Would you like to agree to disagree on this point?”

I never accepted this offer, and never would as I will always contend that it was an exaggerated boast to attempt to embellish your case. Like many others, this statement will come back to haunt you.

I would point out that purposely stating factually inaccurate information is considered by many to be a ……..lie! But I will cut you some slack on this one – maybe it was an honest error.

[rexhamer]

2. Two other curious statements:

However, there is one key point I made in our debate that I can claim victory in, and rexhamer has confirmed it. … 20 years ago, it was no contest who was the better franchise between the Lakers and the Celtics, it was Boston. Today, opinion is mixed, it’s open for debate.

and

Again, I point out, I win because I made a debate out of it.


Why would you claim victory on a point that was never in dispute? I conceded that the Lakers have made up ground on (but have not surpassed) the Celtics over the last twenty years in the very beginning of Blog 2(Rex). This would be akin to me claiming victory because I demonstrated that the Celtics were the most dominant team of the 60’s! Duh!

You can only be desperate for any straw to grasp in this debate.

3.

Let’s get the lying part out of the way. I posted it in the smack talk thread, so certainly he should have seen it. He is incorrect in where the lying part is to be found.

Sorry – but when these accusations were made the thread was an NBA thread. You created the smack talk thread later. This is another clear example of purposeful factually inaccurate information. Once can be an error, twice it becomes a pattern.

4.

I suggest you fight me here if you plan to continue, and not there!

What a surprise – you would rather fight here, where no one cares. Why would you want to take the fight to the blog site, where you have an 83% DIS-approval rating!

5.

Yeah, but much of rexhamer’s hypocritical argument is based on selecting the most favorable of 60 years of the Celtics and creating primary advantages with them

No, I have used all 60 years to create primary categories. Once again, factually incorrect information.

[rexhamer]

6.

His stubbornness has not only enabled me to further refute his work, it has allowed me to improve my case.

Improve your case? I guess that is evidenced by the decreasing number of supporting replies for your case as the blogs went on!

7.

Everyone believes the Celtics are the better franchise until they see my side of the story! This has to hurt, seeing people choose the Lakers over the Celtics!”

I can only guess that these “people” are the “17” out of “37-17”, or the “4” out of “18-4” or the “1” out of “5-1”! No, it must really hurt to see people choose the Celtics over the Lakers.

8.

rexhamer has proven one thing without a doubt: He is an embarrassment to the fan base of the Boston Celtics.
Again, I guess that explains why other Celtics fans at the blog site fans showed consistent support for my argument while Lakers fans abandoned yours. In fact, looking back at your five desperate pleas for support, I would note that not only did Lakers fans fail to come to your aid with blog replies, they didn’t even acknowledge your request on the Lakers’ pages. Not even a “You know we support you” or a “Thanks, but no thanks.” You were being shunned like an Amish adulterer.

Or better yet, it was like the scene near the end of ‘Animal House’ where John Belushi tries to rally the Delta frat boys into action (“Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!”). At the end of his speech, Belushi shouts’ “Let’s go!”, and bounds out the door, only to return disheartened when nobody follows him.

[rexhamer]

Now, on to Blog 5(MJ)

I noted that in Blog 5(MJ), you introduced the notion that you will use IEttR to refute many of my statements. I gave you a chance to provide some specific examples and all you offer is Mark Furman, which was the example to explain what IEttR meant. Therefore, your recent reply acknowledges that you don’t actually have ANY examples to offer relative to our debate. It doesn’t serve much purpose to announce that you will demonstrate “exceptions that disprove the rule” when you don’t have any exceptions! And thus, much of what you claim refuted 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 is now out the window.

I will note here your attempt at what I will call “the old switcheroo”. You have been repeatedly frustrated in your efforts to find real world examples of “most successful” teams with fewer championships and a sub-.500 record in their championship round. So you have tried to turn this around and make me find some.

First of all – the Lakers are YOUR team and it is your contention that they can be “more successful” with the negatives noted above. The burden of proof remains on YOU to provide supporting evidence. Your attempt at “the old switcheroo” isn’t fooling anyone. You also weaken your case with the following contradictory statement:


I feel confident that any thorough investigation will uncover many cases where the most successful team in its domain will have fewer championships than a competitor.

If there are “many cases”, why couldn’t you find them? Why would it take “exhaustive research” to find any of these “many cases”? Besides, what would prevent me from simply stating, “I have done a thorough investigation and have found none”? Again, the burden of proof is on YOU to find these examples.

And then you tried this:

It may be possible in college football. I know of a few universities that keep losing bowl games. We can equate bowl games with finals I suppose. You might find in spite of the losses, they are the most successful team. It’s a big world, have fun!

Sorry – but the notion of national championships and bowl games does not hold. The formal system of BCS national championships has only been around a few years. And how would you determine most successful? Princeton has the most mythical championships based on the very early days of college football, and they have never been to a bowl game.

Equating bowl games with finals? I think not, as any prominent program with a winning record gets to go to a bowl game these days and most all of these games have absolutely nothing with the national championship.

Your erroneous approach to IEttR is summarized with this statement:


See, my whole point of IEttR is because rexhamer makes his points using always or never scenarios. In this case it was left up to him to prove every champion with the most titles is always the most successful because that is exactly what he claims
You could not be more wrong about IEttR – the whole point is for YOU to find the exceptions! My generalizations about 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 were backed up by a comparison of the Celtics, Yankees and Canadiens. If you want to dispute that generalization, find the exception!

But again – you are the self-proclaimed king of Internet research – why can’t YOU find examples to make your case? The answer – they don’t exist. And we’re all waiting with bated breath for the big secret of your claim to have found one.

[rexhamer]

The scorecard – I gave you a chance to explain the obvious hypocrisy of including conference finals wins & losses, while counting only championship finals wins (where are the Lakers’ 15 finals losses?). Your response:


Gee, the Celtics hold only one advantage, that’s why their title edge is listed.



But what about the Lakers Finals losses? When you don’t like a rebuttal, you just ignore it. (We will see more of this as we go along.) You offered no answer to my question, confirming that your scorecard is biased. It is all based on YOUR opinion of what constitutes a relevant category. Or should I say you have “Cherry Picked” the categories? Hypocrisy rears its ugly head again! This is certainly in conflict with this statement:


by creating a scorecard free from bias


Now let’s look at your attempt to remove 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 from the scorecard by speculation.

First, I would like to say that these categories are placed as relevant and important by Celtics_55’s opinion. They are backed up by facts which I maintain are “Cherry Picked”. Does everyone else think they are as important? Well, Celtics_55 has just told you they do! Let’s expose the flawed logic with this. First and foremost, we have the IEttR come into play. The words “any fan” presumes “every fan”. The words “so prominent in any fan’s discussion”, means I can pick “any fans” or you can pick “any fans” and interview them to see what they talk about! If they aren’t Celtics fans, I doubt seriously many of the fans will bring these categories up at all, let alone prominently! Check any basketball forum. They talk about every basketball notion you can imagine, except this! Furthermore, since he claims it will happen and be “prominent in any fan’s discussion”, he is determining their relevance by…drum roll please…..SPECULATION!

That in itself immediately and officially eliminates 9-2 and 17-3 from this debate.


Let’s take this in pieces.


First and foremost, we have the IEttR come into play.
Since I have already shown that you have no actual exceptions, this statement, and any references to your use of this, are refuted.

[rexhamer]

The words “any fan” presumes “every fan”. The words “so prominent in any fan’s discussion”, means I can pick “any fans” or you can pick “any fans” and interview them to see what they talk about! ……. Furthermore, since he claims it will happen and be “prominent in any fan’s discussion”, he is determining their relevance by…drum roll please…..SPECULATION!


You claim my use of the terms “any’ and “all” is speculation as there is no proof that any and all fans agree with me. You are confusing a speculative statement with a generalization.

It would not be speculation for me to say “Any fan would rather be a champion than a runner-up”. Nor is it speculation to say “All fans would prefer to defeat their traditional rival in a playoff series than lose to them”. I do not have to go to forums to prove these statements. These are logical generalizations that do not need backup evidence. Same with my statements.

I have previously noted that Lakers fans near-automatic response to which team was better in the 80’s has always been “Lakers, 5-3 in championships and 2-1 head-to-head.” You don’t think when fans of the Giants, Cowboys and 49er’s get together to determine who has been more successful, the subject of their respective head-to-head playoff meetings does not come up? You don’t think the Steelers are extremely proud of their 6-0 record in the Super Bowl and the Bills are a little embarrassed about being 0-4? Logical generalizations such as these matter when developing relevant categories.

I am sure you have read through the replies to the Hollinger article. There are numerous references to 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15. I would say that refutes this statement:


Check any basketball forum. They talk about every basketball notion you can imagine, except this!


Tell me the last time you were at a basketball forum that talked about a year-by-year analysis of the performance of two teams? Yet you include this in your scorecard. This is just more evidence of the bias of your scorecard. You have based the relevant categories on YOUR opinion. Once again we note the hypocrisy of a statement of yours.


I don’t think we should allow opinions to determine relevant categories.
Your scorecard categories have all been determined by YOUR opinion!

[rexhamer]

But to be fair, I will concede that one should avoid the use of “any/all/always/never” in a debate. So let’s try this. Wherever you see “any” or “all”, substitute any one of the following phrases: “the vast majority of”, “virtually all” or “most every”. This more accurately describes a generalization. In this way the thrust of my statements will remain the same. Because I guess it is possible that a certain minority number of fans (Lakers, Bills?) do not see finals records as relevant!

So, in summary – you have already removed the following from your scorecard - the fewer championships theoretical scenario, the Olympics analogy, and financial value (I loved that one. After presenting it at least four times and getting refuted at every turn, you tell us you were only kidding all along! LOL!). Thus, the rebuttal above pretty much refutes Blog 5 (MJ) in its entirety. And I didn’t even break a sweat!

And I will also take this opportunity to point out another curious habit of your debate technique. I first addressed your “fewer championship theoretical scenario” in Blog 2(Rex) by crafting an equally simple theoretical scenario that showed a team with championships over consistency was more successful. You completely ignored that point in Blog 3(MJ), once again presenting your theoretical scenario as a Lakers’ advantage. I pointed the fact that you had ignored my theoretical scenario in Blog 4 (Rex), expecting some type of reply. But in your Blog 5(MJ), in which you claim to have cut and pasted my entire Blog 4(Rex), this section is again purposely missing! I can only presume that your debate technique includes ignoring an opponent’s points that refute one of your points. I will touch on this again later.

And finally:


17-3, 9-2 and 14-15 were “Cherry Picked” statistics, and proved they didn’t belong in the argument.”

Not only have I put them back in the argument above, to contend that 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 don’t belong in the argument, but 29-9 and 20-11 do is pure hypocrisy. Oh, that’s right – you don’t care about hypocrisy.

On to the replies’ tabulation and your response.

[rexhamer]

6.

His stubbornness has not only enabled me to further refute his work, it has allowed me to improve my case.

Improve your case? I guess that is evidenced by the decreasing number of supporting replies for your case as the blogs went on!

7.

Everyone believes the Celtics are the better franchise until they see my side of the story! This has to hurt, seeing people choose the Lakers over the Celtics!”

I can only guess that these “people” are the “17” out of “37-17”, or the “4” out of “18-4” or the “1” out of “5-1”! No, it must really hurt to see people choose the Celtics over the Lakers.

8.

rexhamer has proven one thing without a doubt: He is an embarrassment to the fan base of the Boston Celtics.
Again, I guess that explains why other Celtics fans at the blog site fans showed consistent support for my argument while Lakers fans abandoned yours. In fact, looking back at your five desperate pleas for support, I would note that not only did Lakers fans fail to come to your aid with blog replies, they didn’t even acknowledge your request on the Lakers’ pages. Not even a “You know we support you” or a “Thanks, but no thanks.” You were being shunned like an Amish adulterer.

Or better yet, it was like the scene near the end of ‘Animal House’ where John Belushi tries to rally the Delta frat boys into action (“Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!”). At the end of his speech, Belushi shouts’ “Let’s go!”, and bounds out the door, only to return disheartened when nobody follows him.

[rexhamer]

So you know a little about the field of Statistics! I emphasize the word “little” as in “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. You attempt at the use of statistics in this way will turn out to be painful for you. But did you think this was going to impress me? Intimidate me? Haven’t you figured out by know that I am not the average Internet rube you must be used to dealing with?

Apparently you know only a little about statistics, and do not understand the difference between Inferential Statistics and Descriptive Statistics. Or do you know the difference and were attempting to be intentionally misleading? Either way, this will be fun. I will get to the difference between Inferential and Descriptive later.

You claim my tabulation fails due to a lack of randomness and sample size. Let’s take sample size first.

1. Since you know a little about statistics, you know that sample size refers to the required number of examples to ascertain a certain standard deviation. The most commonly accepted standard deviation is ± 5%. You see it in numerous polls. The required sample size to assure that standard deviation is four hundred (400).

So, since you know about statistics and required sample sizes, and are knowledgeable about internet discussions (a Super Moderator!), particularly at the blog site, you know perfectly well that a sample size of 400 would never be achieved. And yet, knowing this, you repeatedly offered your case up to be judged. Here are some of your statements that I will lump together for brevity:


“The Lakers will hold all other significant advantages. Then, as my last blog stated, it will be left to the reader to decide.”

“Also, opinion is best left for the reader’s evaluation of historical data. When a final scorecard is listed below, they will be free to make a choice.”

“I was relying on the masses to see through your biased statistics and take my side.”

“Isn’t it up to the reader to determine how they value the numerous non-title advantages the Lakers own over the Celtics?”


Note the use of the phrases “to decide”, “make a choice”, take my side”, and “to determine”.

You now are claiming that the sample size is not large enough to draw any conclusion about judgments. You know quite well that this is an example of an ex post facto argument. And don’t try to say that legal parameters of an argument are not pursuant here as, on 4/14/09, when you first introduced the notion of IEttR, you gave us:


Also, in a court of law, cases are won when reasonable doubt is presented.
Sorry, but you already set the standard for judgment of this debate relative to expected sample sizes. You cannot change the rules now.

[rexhamer]

2. In addition, none of the above statements comes with any conditions about sample size. Had you said something to the effect of, “Then, as my last blog stated, it will be left to the reader to decide, providing a statistically significant sample size is achieved”, we may have a different discussion. In the absence of any such conditions, you have essentially waived your right to impose them after the fact.

3. Many months ago you proclaimed:


Overwhelming consensus on the Internet is that the Lakers are the most successful franchise.


Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “consensus” as “The judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.” Note the term “judgment”. Therefore, you were claiming by this statement that a judgment had been rendered, knowing full well that the sample size fell far short of 400.

4. In the aftermath of tabulating the replies at the blog site, I have recently countered that there is overwhelming consensus on the Internet that the Celtics are the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA. This statement is clearly made with an even larger sample size than when you made yours. So if you were setting the standard for sample sizes with your original statement, mine (with a much larger sample size) carries far more weight.

5. Look, this is an Internet debate, not a graduate course in Statistics. Your attempt to refute my tabulation in this manner indicates you have no legitimate response for the figures themselves.

As for randomness, all the same points apply.

[rexhamer]

Now back to Inferential Statistics vs. Descriptive Statistics. Inferential Statistics refers to making claims or conclusions about a population based on sample data from that population. Descriptive Statistics refers to summarizing and displaying data so we can quickly obtain an overview of that data. You have attempted to impose the rules of Inferential Statistics on to my use of the tabulation, which is an example of Descriptive Statistics.

For further clarification, inferential statistics are most commonly used in election polls. A Gallup Poll, for instance, of likely voters a week before an election may show one candidate with a 60-40 lead. Within the framework of the standard deviations (usually ± 5%), this poll is making a prediction that the general election results will mirror the poll.

I have made no such claims in my tabulation. I would never contend that the quantity of replies allows us to make any prediction as to how all sports fans, or even all NBA fans, or even fans at the blog site feel. I merely presented that results that we have available to examine. And those results indicate the Celtics have been judged to be the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA.

I would like to say nice try, but it really wasn’t.

[rexhamer]

A few other points about your reply.

1.

I repeat his entire new article, excepting a portion that won’t be needed.
It is curious how you determined what would not be needed, because an entire section missing – the part where I introduce the notion of a trend towards the Celtics with my introduction of Blog 2(Rex), and of “neutral” replies. Hmmm. Ignoring an opponent’s valid point. Haven’t we seen that somewhere before?

2.

He is basing his “victory” on the replies. this is akin to saying Orlando won last night because they were ahead 24-22 after one quarter.


What you’re implying is that we should only tabulate the replies of everyone who has seen and read all five blogs. First of all, even if someone replied to Blog 5(MJ) there is now way to know with certainty they read all five. Secondly, if we limit the tabulation to those replies posted after Blog 5(MJ), the count is 8-1 overall, and 5-1 neutral in favor of the Celtics. (Ah! Now we know why you omitted this portion of my post!). And before you try to dispute 5-1 with “Treya’s” change of heart, he has done so after the recent championship, which is a different set of circumstances. When evaluating OUR debate, he chose the Celtics.

But if we were to take your objection a bit further with your Orlando analogy, you would have us only count points scored in the fourth quarter. Last time I checked, the outcome of a basketball game was determined by the CUMULATIVE score from the entire game. Therefore, 37-17 is the cumulative score. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone’s mind was changed from one blog to another (with the exception of “Bleed”).

3.

I had countless instances of support.


Really? Where? Certainly not anywhere they could be tabulated.


Not everyone posts in a blog.


That’s right – which is why the only accurate way to determine the effectiveness of the argument is to count those that do. It is a pretty sad commentary on your alleged support that not a single Lakers fan would make that tiny extra effort to post a reply after your five pleas.


At the blog site, a reply tells you it’s been read.


No – a reply tells you that it has been read AND the reader may have been so moved by the points made to render a judgment and indicate such.

4.

Very few people saw my most powerful post ever!”

But apparently enough of them saw it to reply 8-1 in favor of the Celtics!

Now on to the real fun part – a revelation so to speak!

[rexhamer]

It all begins with this statement:


What really constitutes an internet debate? Side A makes a point, side B offers a rebuttal. Eventually, one side comes out on top on each point when the other side has no answer or concedes that issue


I am here to point out that, for the umpteenth time, you are completely wrong. But this statement now explains so much of what you have said previously. Debates are not conducted in the manner that you describe, in which two opponents go at it continually ad infinitum until one concedes. I will call this the “Last Man Standing” theory. Debates are made with presentations by each side, and then the presentations are judged.

And I will take a brief moment to note a refrain that you have used in a number of forms:


Once again, rexhamer wants to set the rules for the debate


We know already know you are not the least bit hesitant to practice hypocrisy, but what you have done here is an attempt to actually define the rules of the debate yourself – and you are completely wrong with that.

The most common and popular debate that we are familiar with is the Presidential Debate. It is also possible that significant local debates are televised, but the point is that the format is relatively standard. Some agreement is made on presentations, questions, answers and rebuttals ahead of time. But what is common to these debates is that they come to an end. In all my years I have never seen a Presidential Debate that continued until one candidate threw up his/her arms, conceded, and walked off the stage. Following these debates, the media is full of people declaring a winner. These may be pundits and spin-meisters who are not necessarily objective, but the media is full of many that are objective. The point is that the debate is completed and people express their judgment as to who is the winner. It can also be concluded that the ultimate judges of the debate are the voters. But at some point, by somebody, the debate is judged.

The next most common form of debate is probably the high school or college team debate. In some form or other each team makes a case for a particular pro or con position on an issue. The merits of their argument are evaluated by a judge or a panel of judges. They may rate a number of aspects of the debate (presentation, preparedness, etc.), but ultimately select a winner. Here is a site that offers a number of formats for a debate

Debate (http://www.triviumpursuit.com/speech_debate/what_is_debate.htm)

One thing you will note - nowhere does it suggest the “Last Man Standing” approach. In fact, there is an entire section on ‘Judging’ debates. More evidence to confirm that my approach to a debate is the correct one.

But maybe Internet debates are different. Let’s take a look at an Internet site that is specifically dedicated to Internet Debates. It is elegantly named Debate.org | Debate, Online Debates, Internet Debates, and Debating Community (http://www.debate.org).
You will note the following at this site:

1. There is no “Last Man Standing” procedure.
2. There is a time limit on presentation of cases.
3. There is a mechanism for members of this site to vote (make a judgment) on the merits of the debate, and - you’ll love this – those judgments are tabulated!

There can be no doubt that your entire perception of what constitutes a debate, and how a winner is determined, is completely and utterly wrong. In fact, your approach to a debate is strikingly similar to Argumentum ad Nauseum. You should remember this from when I schooled you on logical fallacies. It is the practice of continually presenting the same points over and over again. Therefore, your entire approach to a debate is a logical fallacy in and of itself!!

[rexhamer]

But as I noted before, this statement is such a revelation. First of all, it can now be said that neither of us was intentionally lying about who won, considering our differing positions on winning a debate. But what is really more intriguing is this:


Sorry, I told rexhamer ages ago that I always win internet arguments.


With this revelation, it is quite possible that you have NEVER actually won an Internet debate, but merely outlasted all of your opponents with Argumentum ad Nauseum!

It also explains why you have been practically begging me to refute Blog 5(MJ), because you realize that, despite all the evidence supporting the Celtics, you can keep your hopes of winning (in your estimation) alive just by continuing the debate endlessly. It also explains so many of your statements. I will only note a few.


“I am looking for someone to refute me.”

“If no one refutes me, then I am correct.”

“You fight or you quit.”

“I am also winning because your entire blog has been refuted …”


Thus, now that Blog 5(MJ) has been refuted along with your objections to the tabulations, in summary we have the following irrefutable facts:

1. We have both made our presentations through five lengthy and comprehensive blogs.
2. We have both rested our cases.
3. The debate has been judged. If we only take neutral judges from Blog 5(MJ) the tally is 5-1 for the Celtics. Overall votes are even greater.
4. I have shown this is the proper way to determine a debate winner.

You have lost this debate – learn to deal with it!

If you want to continue in some fashion with the most recent events and new figures under consideration (i.e., 17-15 as opposed 17-14), you must first concede that while the numbers were “17-14”, etc., the Celtics were the most successful NBA franchise of all time. That is what OUR debate was about.

If not, this discussion is over.

Now, on to the Hollinger and the ESPN poll!

[michaeljohn]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This will be so easy....

I simply cannot believe you are stupid enough to let yourself get owned on this site like this. Actually, I can. It's been evident in your posts ever since we started. Ok, let me start tearing up this massive failure apart, post by post.

You really do want a Big Baby avatar don't you?

Edit Friday, 10 AMish.
When rexhamer started this thread, he continued his continual path of flawed logic, many instances of which I have demonstrated in this and the smack talk thread this forum. First, he spun this new angle in an effort to avoid the fact that his arguments have been beaten. 2 months later he still ignores the fact that I clearly and decisively defeated his main aruments of 9-2, 17-3, and 14-15. He won't even address what I said, yet he claims they belong as relevant categories. They were also clearly refuted because I proved they were speculation on his part, a concept he is dead set against. However, he does address my speculation argument below with what? More speculation! Apparently he can speculate but no one else can. This will all be demonstrated as I shred this failed continuance of the argument to shreds.

Now, on the first page of this thread, his new argument of claiming he won the debate was thoroughly clobbered. What does he do? He ignores most of the information I beat him with here and continues with his naivety of statistics and fails yet again. He also tries to pawn all of his failed argument traits off on me! His posts below finally do address some of my points that he ignored from my last blog 5 (MJ), but he fails again, particularly because he commits self-ownage and destroys his own case right in front of our eyes!

What on earth do they put in the New England Clam Chowder, reshamer, it's made you nuttier than a fruitcake. My biggest gripe with him seems to be caused by his lack of reading comprehension. He simply can't seem to read and recognize where I clearly point out facts that refute him, and commits the same errors all over again! I hope if he wishes to keep arguing, he follows my advice laid out earlier, to argue what's in Blog 5 (MJ) and get off these failed tangents.

He is one of the easiest people to beat in an argument because he simply won't fight. He has had stuff on the table for 2 months he won't address, which is why my case is not rested as he thinks and claims it is. Offers to others to step in have been made already. It's not my fault no Celtics fan wants to step in and admit that rexhamer is beaten and that his primary arguments have been permanently laid to rest.

reshamer also knows this debate takes my priority, so I can never quit it until I see an admittion of defeat, or him or his "replacement" to walk away. As explained, I have a blog Boston fans will love and want to see. He is depriving them of this! I can't write that until this argument is over. What a great supporter of Boston teams and fans rexhamer is. He is a fool and should hope Boston fans don't ever see this part of the argument that has migrated back to this site from the other one. He is certanly selfish. Again, he is a nobody here at Webrats, no one cares he got whipped. They probably will care at the other site, so let's for his sakes, end it here.

Read on. All of his new posts from yesterday are repeated below, with my individual responses. You will see he is clearly and decisively beaten, once again.

End Edit.

[michaeljohn]

Let’s begin with an acknowledgement – since we both “rested our cases” prior to the completion of the 2009 NBA playoffs, I will refer to the numbers we have been debating for a year now; i.e., “17-14”, etc. We can deal with new numbers later when I address the Hollinger rankings and the ESPN poll.

First – some housekeeping items to note.

1.
We agreed to disagree on “Overwhelming Consensus”

Actually this is factually incorrect. What you said on 4/18/09 was:

It isn’t important to the debate. Would you like to agree to disagree on this point?”

I never accepted this offer, and never would as I will always contend that it was an exaggerated boast to attempt to embellish your case. Like many others, this statement will come back to haunt you.

I would point out that purposely stating factually inaccurate information is considered by many to be a ……..lie! But I will cut you some slack on this one – maybe it was an honest error.

Whoah! hold on there! Resting a case doesn't mean we quit arguing, we both have done this since then. I look at it as a way to say "done for now". If you don't like that explanation tough, I was mimicking you as you said you rested your case. I have already shown how you mimick me. Besides, there is a lot on the table that you have ignored, plenty of it as will be shown. Also, you know I have said repeatedly I will argue this case until doomsday if need be. This is especially true since once again, you have failed to acknowledge my refutations to your blog.

Actually, your words come back to haunt you, as I have shown already. Let's see what happens when we get to what you refer to.

Meanwhile, I have to decide if I want to tear your latest failure complete with its flawed logic to shreds individually, or in summary.

[michaeljohn]

My replies inseterted in purple font.

2. Two other curious statements:

However, there is one key point I made in our debate that I can claim victory in, and rexhamer has confirmed it. … 20 years ago, it was no contest who was the better franchise between the Lakers and the Celtics, it was Boston. Today, opinion is mixed, it’s open for debate.



and


Again, I point out, I win because I made a debate out of it.


Why would you claim victory on a point that was never in dispute? I conceded that the Lakers have made up ground on (but have not surpassed) the Celtics over the last twenty years in the very beginning of Blog 2(Rex). This would be akin to me claiming victory because I demonstrated that the Celtics were the most dominant team of the 60’s! Duh!

You can only be desperate for any straw to grasp in this debate.

I am not desperate at all. Obviously you just don't get it and don't read what's in front of you. As I have said in this debate, before my article, almost everyone of all people asked would pick the Celtics as the most successful. My article changed the numbers among those that saw it. Hollinger's changed them more. More on Hollinger when you get there.
3.

Let’s get the lying part out of the way. I posted it in the smack talk thread, so certainly he should have seen it. He is incorrect in where the lying part is to be found.


Sorry – but when these accusations were made the thread was an NBA thread. You created the smack talk thread later. This is another clear example of purposeful factually inaccurate information. Once can be an error, twice it becomes a pattern.

Ummm...Look at the twist you are making here. You came here and lied. It doesn't matter the NBA and Smack thread were still together as one when you lied. I was refering where to find it so anyone could if they wanted. You lied in that thread!

4.


I suggest you fight me here if you plan to continue, and not there!


What a surprise – you would rather fight here, where no one cares. Why would you want to take the fight to the blog site, where you have an 83% DIS-approval rating!

Still using those statistics that I proved were erroneously attained? I see later in this thread you are at it again. I'll deal with that when it comes in. Also, you haven't dealt with the fact that:

1) My blog before the debate has about 4 replies favoring the Lakers that were meant for the current debate. You haven't added those in.
2) Also, a neutral fan who selected the Celtics switched over to the Lakers side when we won #15. I posted evidence of that in your last blog. Your flawed statistics are even more off base!
3) Most importantly, you are getting your ass whipped here and decisively. You don't want Celtics fans to see this. Perhaps you do. Note, I still haven't added my last rebuttal in this thread to the other site, I just summarized it in the replies to my blog, which no one has read. It's ready to drop in at a moments notice. My replies here will be as well in due time. That depends on you and how long you want to fight over this.
5.

Yeah, but much of rexhamer’s hypocritical argument is based on selecting the most favorable of 60 years of the Celtics and creating primary advantages with them


No, I have used all 60 years to create primary categories. Once again, factually incorrect information.

And you used "Cherry Picking" to select the best years from the 60. "Cherry Picking directly contradicts your centention that you are examining the entire history of the NBA because it ignores all the unfavorble seasons. Besides, I refuted "Cherry Picking" already, and you still haven't replied to that. There is much you haven't acknowledged, you just rely on switching the argument and throw more flawed logic at me!

[michaeljohn]

Now, on to Blog 5(MJ)

I noted that in Blog 5(MJ), you introduced the notion that you will use IEttR to refute many of my statements. I gave you a chance to provide some specific examples and all you offer is Mark Furman, which was the example to explain what IEttR meant. Therefore, your recent reply acknowledges that you don’t actually have ANY examples to offer relative to our debate. It doesn’t serve much purpose to announce that you will demonstrate “exceptions that disprove the rule” when you don’t have any exceptions! And thus, much of what you claim refuted 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 is now out the window.

No, no, no and no. More flawed logic on your part. You are stating that most championships means the best, always. I repeat, you said ALWAYS. That is something you have to prove, not me. Since you obviously lack a sound mathematical background, you don't realize how vital it is for a mathematician to back up his theorem with a proof. If not, the IEttR will embarass him in front of his peers when his therom is proven wrong. If you can't prove it's always the case, the IEttR beats you down when it pops up. Therefore, you can't make an ALWAYS claim unless you can prove it. Your counter claim is easily and permanently disposed of, until you prove it is ALWAYS the case. At least you finally realized I discussed Mark Fuhrman, you didn't ignore it again, like many of my points you still haven't addressed

I will note here your attempt at what I will call “the old switcheroo”. You have been repeatedly frustrated in your efforts to find real world examples of “most successful” teams with fewer championships and a sub-.500 record in their championship round. So you have tried to turn this around and make me find some.

First of all – the Lakers are YOUR team and it is your contention that they can be “more successful” with the negatives noted above. The burden of proof remains on YOU to provide supporting evidence. Your attempt at “the old switcheroo” isn’t fooling anyone. You also weaken your case with the following contradictory statement:


I feel confident that any thorough investigation will uncover many cases where the most successful team in its domain will have fewer championships than a competitor.


If there are “many cases”, why couldn’t you find them? Why would it take “exhaustive research” to find any of these “many cases”? Besides, what would prevent me from simply stating, “I have done a thorough investigation and have found none”? Again, the burden of proof is on YOU to find these examples.

As explained above, your attempt to twist things has already been proven to be flawed logic. You excel at that I must say!

And then you tried this:

Sorry – but the notion of national championships and bowl games does not hold. The formal system of BCS national championships has only been around a few years. And how would you determine most successful? Princeton has the most mythical championships based on the very early days of college football, and they have never been to a bowl game.

Equating bowl games with finals? I think not, as any prominent program with a winning record gets to go to a bowl game these days and most all of these games have absolutely nothing with the national championship.

Well, among the major contenders for the claim of being #1 college team, most bowl games need not be examined, unless they play in one. Pre BCS they did have polls, even though the results weren't always in agreement. Result? Two schools claim a championship! So, a college comaprison including bowl games as finals appearances could be done, but it is beyond the scope of this argument.
Your erroneous approach to IEttR is summarized with this statement:

You could not be more wrong about IEttR – the whole point is for YOU to find the exceptions! My generalizations about 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 were backed up by a comparison of the Celtics, Yankees and Canadiens. If you want to dispute that generalization, find the exception!

You can't equate the Celtics to the Yankees and the Canadiens. Their domination in titles over their rivals isn't even close. The NBA is. Give that part up, it's refuted. 17-15 is close enough to take another look, the Yankees and the Canadiens advantages in titles aren't. Something I have already said, but you choose to ignore, and as I sadi above, you have to prove the IEttR, not me! Your flawed logic continues.

But again – you are the self-proclaimed king of Internet research – why can’t YOU find examples to make your case? The answer – they don’t exist. And we’re all waiting with bated breath for the big secret of your claim to have found one.

Gee, this is the rest of your defense? Since you say they don't exist, that means you have proved they don't. Remember, I proved it's you that have to back up your words, not me. So, we are waiting for you to prove it, still. You have now put yourself in an unenviable position of countless years of research. your attempt to turn the IEttR around has clearly exploded in your face.

[michaeljohn]

The scorecard – I gave you a chance to explain the obvious hypocrisy of including conference finals wins & losses, while counting only championship finals wins (where are the Lakers’ 15 finals losses?). Your response:


Gee, the Celtics hold only one advantage, that’s why their title edge is listed.




But what about the Lakers Finals losses? When you don’t like a rebuttal, you just ignore it. (We will see more of this as we go along.) You offered no answer to my question, confirming that your scorecard is biased. It is all based on YOUR opinion of what constitutes a relevant category. Or should I say you have “Cherry Picked” the categories?

Oh my oh my. Your failure to even follow this argument and demonstrate you even know what you are talking about is simply amazing. You claim I ignore stuff? You do! My last blog addressed everything and I even pointed this out in this thread! I already pointed out I gave a refutation to 14-15 in my blog, and most likley in several places in this thread that you still haven't answered!

Here's my reply in my blog rexhamer, go look for yourself and see it. Then my refutation that follows what I show below in quoting myself. That's yet another thing you have ignored, you never argued with my refutation. I even advised you there to pay attention, something you clearly have trouble with, and something that is causing you to commit self-ownage here over and over again:

Yes, I did address the 14-15 record. Did rexhamer not pay attention? And to think he asks why I have to keep repeating myself! You are the one ducking my questions, that’s evident throughout my blog.


Hypocrisy rears its ugly head again!
Yep, it's you who are the hypocrite, your arguments are guilty of it. Thanks for helping me point it out to everyone.
This is certainly in conflict with this statement:


by creating a scorecard free from bias

My scorecard isn't biased, your statements are erroneous. Let's have a look at it:

Final Scorecard:

1) Titles: Celtics 17, Lakers 14: Edge Celtics, plus 3
2) NBA Finals appearances, and conference finals wins: Lakers 29, Celtics 20. Edge Lakers, plus 9
3) NBA Conference Finals appearances: Lakers 38, Celtics 31, Edge Lakers, plus 7
4) NBA Conference Finals losses: Lakers 9, Celtics 11, Edge Lakers, plus 2.
5) Who’s best, season by season over the entire NBA history: Lakers 33, Celtics, 22, equal 5. (Or Lakers 36, Celtics 24) Edge Lakers, plus 11 (or 12)
6) Playoff appearances: Lakers 55/60, Celtics 45/60: Edge Lakers, plus 10.
7) Franchise regular season winning percentages, Lakers 61.7%, Celtics 59.3%, Edge Lakers.
8) Can the most successful franchise have fewer titles? Yes. Edge Lakers.
9) Can the most successful franchise have a losing finals record? Yes, Edge Lakers.

There is nothing in this scorecard that is biased at all. Every category is relevant as the facts are cumulative totals over the entire history of the NBA. The last two are simply added, with proof in my blog, to answer anyone who objects to those statements. Note, Point 9 no longer applies! The categories you want to add are clearly biased, More on that as needed.

Now let’s look at your attempt to remove 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 from the scorecard by speculation.


First, I would like to say that these categories are placed as relevant and important by Celtics_55’s opinion. They are backed up by facts which I maintain are “Cherry Picked”. Does everyone else think they are as important? Well, Celtics_55 has just told you they do! Let’s expose the flawed logic with this. First and foremost, we have the IEttR come into play. The words “any fan” presumes “every fan”. The words “so prominent in any fan’s discussion”, means I can pick “any fans” or you can pick “any fans” and interview them to see what they talk about! If they aren’t Celtics fans, I doubt seriously many of the fans will bring these categories up at all, let alone prominently! Check any basketball forum. They talk about every basketball notion you can imagine, except this! Furthermore, since he claims it will happen and be “prominent in any fan’s discussion”, he is determining their relevance by…drum roll please…..SPECULATION!

That in itself immediately and officially eliminates 9-2 and 17-3 from this debate.


Let’s take this in pieces.


First and foremost, we have the IEttR come into play.


Since I have already shown that you have no actual exceptions, this statement, and any references to your use of this, are refuted.

Wow, what a weak response. I clearly destroyed your arguments above about the IEttR. So, two things. Remember, they remain speculation and you still haven't addressed my independant refutations of them! You love to ignore everything I beat you with don't you. You want to call the fight off in the first quarter as I have stated already.

[michaeljohn]

The words “any fan” presumes “every fan”. The words “so prominent in any fan’s discussion”, means I can pick “any fans” or you can pick “any fans” and interview them to see what they talk about! ……. Furthermore, since he claims it will happen and be “prominent in any fan’s discussion”, he is determining their relevance by…drum roll please…..SPECULATION!



You claim my use of the terms “any’ and “all” is speculation as there is no proof that any and all fans agree with me. You are confusing a speculative statement with a generalization.

Quit twisting things. You said they are prominate in any fans' discussion. Any fan, means every fan, and that's why they belong as relevant categories in the scorecard. That means you are speculating. Look above where I quoted your reply to my blog, that your first has evidence to restore them as primary categores? Where is this proof? You just love to duck the questions, don't you? You are guilty of speculation and hypocrisy. You can speculate but I can't. You owned yourself again by calling it a speculative statement. A speculative statement is still speculation, and that's what you call it. you admit you are a speculator! 9-2, 17-3, and 14-15 are now forever removed as speculation. You don't have to refute my refutations of them now.

It would not be speculation for me to say “Any fan would rather be a champion than a runner-up”. Nor is it speculation to say “All fans would prefer to defeat their traditional rival in a playoff series than lose to them”. I do not have to go to forums to prove these statements. These are logical generalizations that do not need backup evidence. Same with my statements.

I have previously noted that Lakers fans near-automatic response to which team was better in the 80’s has always been “Lakers, 5-3 in championships and 2-1 head-to-head.” You don’t think when fans of the Giants, Cowboys and 49er’s get together to determine who has been more successful, the subject of their respective head-to-head playoff meetings does not come up? You don’t think the Steelers are extremely proud of their 6-0 record in the Super Bowl and the Bills are a little embarrassed about being 0-4? Logical generalizations such as these matter when developing relevant categories.

I am sure you have read through the replies to the Hollinger article. There are numerous references to 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15. I would say that refutes this statement:


Check any basketball forum. They talk about every basketball notion you can imagine, except this!


It refutes it? LOL, you are an idiot! That's one example. According to you, it will be in every discussion. I already pointed out I saw several sites that listed titles and few if any talked about 9-2, 17-3, and 14-15.

Tell me the last time you were at a basketball forum that talked about a year-by-year analysis of the performance of two teams? Yet you include this in your scorecard. This is just more evidence of the bias of your scorecard. You have based the relevant categories on YOUR opinion. Once again we note the hypocrisy of a statement of yours.

I'll tell you the last time a forum talked about it. Actually, I won't, but let me say this, there are a huge number of unhappy Celtics fans right now because they now realize it's 37-24 Lakers, not 9-2 Celtics. The creation of the topic 37-24 is my "invention" and it's time the world sees it! 9-2 is unfair "Cherry Picking". Your stubborness has caused me to spread the word! It's all your fault I am smacking Celtics fans around quite a bit now. Such a great fan you are. I noted above I need a new arguing foe, you just don't have what it takes to best me.

Your scorecard categories have all been determined by YOUR opinion!

My opinion? Yes, and as I pointed out, an unbiased one at that! My opinion of the historical categories is unarguable fact. You can only argue #8 with a few years of research.

[michaeljohn]

But to be fair, I will concede that one should avoid the use of “any/all/always/never” in a debate. So let’s try this. Wherever you see “any” or “all”, substitute any one of the following phrases: “the vast majority of”, “virtually all” or “most every”. This more accurately describes a generalization. In this way the thrust of my statements will remain the same. Because I guess it is possible that a certain minority number of fans (Lakers, Bills?) do not see finals records as relevant!

Oh wow, you have commited the ultimate self-ownage here. Since you are now saying to replace uses of "any/all/always/never" with something uncertain in a debate, ie, your blog, you are now admitting it's possible for a team to have fewer championships and be the most successful. Congratulations on sharing this for all to see. You have just stated that it's possible for a team with fewer championships to be the most successful, and that having the most titles doesn't ALWAYS mean being the best franchise. You no longer have to start searching for a team with fewer championships that is the best team. Point 8 in the scorecard is justified by you.

So, in summary – you have already removed the following from your scorecard - the fewer championships theoretical scenario, the Olympics analogy,

That was an interesting topic and thanks to Hollinger's article, it deserves another look. It shows how success short of a championship have merit by awarding "Gold, Silver, and Bronze" medals to teams that make it at least to the conference finals. It was based on a 5 3 1 point system, which is commonly used in the NBA for other annual awards. You got egg on your face over that when you tried to apply an NBA formula to another sport! Also, when comparing the Bulls to the Spurs, you claimed it didn't work, totally missing my point that other successes beyond the medal count come into play. So, it works! However, still no need to try to put it back in play, I don't need it to prove my case.

and financial value (I loved that one. After presenting it at least four times and getting refuted at every turn, you tell us you were only kidding all along! LOL!).

Yeah, I loved that one too. I set you up on purpose to make you answer the same type of ridiculous questions you ask me. Since you didn't like it one bit, my tactic worked far beyond my expectations. Dealing with Cherry Picking is easy to refute, isn't it? LOL, Owned.

Thus, the rebuttal above pretty much refutes Blog 5 (MJ) in its entirety. And I didn’t even break a sweat!

Woah, hold your horses boy! I refuted everything you posted today, above. Everything. I also have your most recent blog entirely refuted and exposed for hypocrisy and flawed logic point by point. You still haven't addressed my refutations of your blog. Still! How many times have I asked you to deal with those? Too many. I have made countless posts referring to my refutations of your blog that you claim you already refuted. Again I ask, how can you refute something by ignoring it? Impossible, except in your world I suppose. You are the master of flawed logic, and don't know how to debate.

And I will also take this opportunity to point out another curious habit of your debate technique. I first addressed your “fewer championship theoretical scenario” in Blog 2(Rex) by crafting an equally simple theoretical scenario that showed a team with championships over consistency was more successful. You completely ignored that point in Blog 3(MJ), once again presenting your theoretical scenario as a Lakers’ advantage. I pointed the fact that you had ignored my theoretical scenario in Blog 4 (Rex), expecting some type of reply. But in your Blog 5(MJ), in which you claim to have cut and pasted my entire Blog 4(Rex), this section is again purposely missing! I can only presume that your debate technique includes ignoring an opponent’s points that refute one of your points. I will touch on this again later.

Hold on again! What you are referring to are my uses of speculation in earlier blogs. If it has to do with speculation, it isn't needed, period. I beat your arguments without it in Blog 5 (MJ).

And finally:


17-3, 9-2 and 14-15 were “Cherry Picked” statistics, and proved they didn’t belong in the argument.”


Not only have I put them back in the argument above, to contend that 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 don’t belong in the argument, but 29-9 and 20-11 do is pure hypocrisy. Oh, that’s right – you don’t care about hypocrisy.

On to the replies’ tabulation and your response.

You are the hypocrite here. 9-2, 17-3, and 14-15 are both refuted independantly (which you have NEVER addressed. along with a ton of other stuff you ignore), and proved above again, they are specualtion. Two seperate and decisive defeats.

29-9 and 20-11 are the Lakers and Celtics conference finals records over the entire history of the NBA. They are not biased results and clearly belong in the scorecard. The fact that the Lakers now have 10 extra conference finals wins, a tremendous advantage over the Celtics, is not so easily dismissed by you. Your flawed logic never ceases, does it?

[michaeljohn]

your post above, #41 is a duplicate of post #36 in this thread. I removed my reply to it from above, and repost it here:

6.

His stubbornness has not only enabled me to further refute his work, it has allowed me to improve my case.


Improve your case? I guess that is evidenced by the decreasing number of supporting replies for your case as the blogs went on!

Yes it has allowed me to improve my case. The Lakers historical 37-24 was added later! You also ignore what I pointed out already, my last and most powerful blog had no shelf life on the Lakers page! Check the dates yourself. Since you don't want me drumming up Lakers support on the main page, few saw it. Besides, the replies are unreliable as I already proved, and now you want to construct another flawed case for bringing them back! LOL!

7.

Everyone believes the Celtics are the better franchise until they see my side of the story! This has to hurt, seeing people choose the Lakers over the Celtics!”


I can only guess that these “people” are the “17” out of “37-17”, or the “4” out of “18-4” or the “1” out of “5-1”! No, it must really hurt to see people choose the Celtics over the Lakers.
Not at all, aside from the fact I proved those numbers are in error, (See my last post), I also stated before my article that almost everyone would choose the Celtics. You lack reading comprehension. you are the one that is hurt, don't push your anguish off on me.

8.

rexhamer has proven one thing without a doubt: He is an embarrassment to the fan base of the Boston Celtics.

Again, I guess that explains why other Celtics fans at the blog site fans showed consistent support for my argument while Lakers fans abandoned yours. In fact, looking back at your five desperate pleas for support, I would note that not only did Lakers fans fail to come to your aid with blog replies, they didn’t even acknowledge your request on the Lakers’ pages. Not even a “You know we support you” or a “Thanks, but no thanks.” You were being shunned like an Amish adulterer.

Or better yet, it was like the scene near the end of ‘Animal House’ where John Belushi tries to rally the Delta frat boys into action (“Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!”). At the end of his speech, Belushi shouts’ “Let’s go!”, and bounds out the door, only to return disheartened when nobody follows him.

Talk about twisting the facts! I already stated there were countless replies of support on the main Lakers page. PM's I had many. There is more evidence of support I will reveal later. Why should I when you don't even want to acknowledge the positives I did receive? Oh, because they didn't reply to my blog itself, that is lack of support and thus they don't count. You are so stupid it's incredible.

Yep, you are an embarrassment to the fanbase of the Celtics. You are getting your clocked clean for a second time in this thread! Your blog was flawed, your first argument in this was flawed, and your posts today are flawed. You simply want to debate everything under the sun except for my refutations of your blog! That's a loser strategy; When losing the debate, attack something else, anything, and hope you throw enough shit on the wall it sticks.

[michaeljohn]

So you know a little about the field of Statistics! I emphasize the word “little” as in “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. You attempt at the use of statistics in this way will turn out to be painful for you. But did you think this was going to impress me? Intimidate me? Haven’t you figured out by know that I am not the average Internet rube you must be used to dealing with?

You need to get ready for the pain. As to who I am dealing with, you are very foolish. You use flawed logic. You lack reading comprehension thus forcing me to repeat myself constantly. You don't face the issues on the table. You commit self-ownage over and over. You are a hypocrite and try to pass this failure of yours off on me. Shall I go on?

Apparently you know only a little about statistics, and do not understand the difference between Inferential Statistics and Descriptive Statistics. Or do you know the difference and were attempting to be intentionally misleading? Either way, this will be fun. I will get to the difference between Inferential and Descriptive later.

You claim my tabulation fails due to a lack of randomness and sample size. Let’s take sample size first.

1. Since you know a little about statistics, you know that sample size refers to the required number of examples to ascertain a certain standard deviation. The most commonly accepted standard deviation is ± 5%. You see it in numerous polls. The required sample size to assure that standard deviation is four hundred (400).

So, since you know about statistics and required sample sizes, and are knowledgeable about internet discussions (a Super Moderator!), particularly at the blog site, you know perfectly well that a sample size of 400 would never be achieved. And yet, knowing this, you repeatedly offered your case up to be judged. Here are some of your statements that I will lump together for brevity:


“The Lakers will hold all other significant advantages. Then, as my last blog stated, it will be left to the reader to decide.”

“Also, opinion is best left for the reader’s evaluation of historical data. When a final scorecard is listed below, they will be free to make a choice.”

“I was relying on the masses to see through your biased statistics and take my side.”

“Isn’t it up to the reader to determine how they value the numerous non-title advantages the Lakers own over the Celtics?”


Note the use of the phrases “to decide”, “make a choice”, take my side”, and “to determine”.

Whoa, slow down again with the flawed logic already! I never said I was trying to get votes for my side. What I said was, I wanted people who disagreed with me to see my blog to commence arguing and attempt to refute it. If they can't refute it, it means my arguments are correct! I had no clue when I wrote those statements that you would even think to attempt to quit the argument as you did and attempt to end the debate in the first quarter by tallying the votes with statistically flawed logic and thus claim you won.

You now are claiming that the sample size is not large enough to draw any conclusion about judgments. You know quite well that this is an example of an ex post facto argument. And don’t try to say that legal parameters of an argument are not pursuant here as, on 4/14/09, when you first introduced the notion of IEttR, you gave us:


Also, in a court of law, cases are won when reasonable doubt is presented.



Sorry, but you already set the standard for judgment of this debate relative to expected sample sizes. You cannot change the rules now.

What do you mean I can't change the rules? I am not even trying! You have been trying to change them all along! As I tear apart more of your latest garbage this will be further evident. For the record, I placed a ton of doubt on all of your arguments, well beyond reasonable and very convincing! If you don't have reasonable sample sizes, you can't introduce the evidence, Period. This has nothing to do with my quote about reasonable doubt and you know it. You are really something else, that's for sure. Congratulations on being my fall guy here. ex post facto indeed, get real. I could really take you to the cleaners on that. As a matter of fact, I already have. Read and learn what's been said.

[michaeljohn]

2. In addition, none of the above statements comes with any conditions about sample size. Had you said something to the effect of, “Then, as my last blog stated, it will be left to the reader to decide, providing a statistically significant sample size is achieved”, we may have a different discussion. In the absence of any such conditions, you have essentially waived your right to impose them after the fact.

3. Many months ago you proclaimed:


Overwhelming consensus on the Internet is that the Lakers are the most successful franchise.


Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “consensus” as “The judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.” Note the term “judgment”. Therefore, you were claiming by this statement that a judgment had been rendered, knowing full well that the sample size fell far short of 400.

Whoh, this is something we agreed to disagree on. There you go trying to change the rules again! You can't bring it up. Just considerit smack talk on my part, and more flawed logic and avoidance of the real issues on your part.

4. In the aftermath of tabulating the replies at the blog site, I have recently countered that there is overwhelming consensus on the Internet that the Celtics are the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA. This statement is clearly made with an even larger sample size than when you made yours. So if you were setting the standard for sample sizes with your original statement, mine (with a much larger sample size) carries far more weight.

Still at it with the flawed logic I see. Let's remember, some votes weren't counted. Let's remember one neutral Celtics supporter switched sides. Let's remember that you decided only to count votes from the blogs when I told you clearly there were plenty of comments on the main Lakers page. Shades of the dimpled chad and voters intent! Let's remember my last and most powerful blog didn't appear on the Lakers main page as five more blogs quickly followed and displaced it. Let's remember that your blogs were sent to team pages that hate the Lakers, and so were mine! Let's remember that the sample population was not random! Last of all, you are attempting to claim victory when the debate is still in the first quarter and still haven't addressed my refutations. Except for a statistical justification you attempt and I will shortly refute, YOU IGNORED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS PARAGRAPH THAT REFUTED THIS THREAD ALREADY! YES FOLKS rexhamer HAS NO READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS AND SIMPLY WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE EVERY POINT I OUTLINE THAT REFUTED HIS ENTIRE BLOG AND EVERY PART OF THIS THREAD. HE WANTS TO SPIN THE ARGUMENT IN TOTALLY UNRELATED DIRECTIONS, ANYTHING TO AVOID ADMITTING DEFEAT

5. Look, this is an Internet debate, not a graduate course in Statistics. Your attempt to refute my tabulation in this manner indicates you have no legitimate response for the figures themselves.

As for randomness, all the same points apply.

As I said, I never tried to gather statistics, you did. I have every reason to point out your flawed statistical analysis including randomness. More on that when it's time.

[michaeljohn]

Now back to Inferential Statistics vs. Descriptive Statistics. Inferential Statistics refers to making claims or conclusions about a population based on sample data from that population. Descriptive Statistics refers to summarizing and displaying data so we can quickly obtain an overview of that data. You have attempted to impose the rules of Inferential Statistics on to my use of the tabulation, which is an example of Descriptive Statistics.

For further clarification, inferential statistics are most commonly used in election polls. A Gallup Poll, for instance, of likely voters a week before an election may show one candidate with a 60-40 lead. Within the framework of the standard deviations (usually ± 5%), this poll is making a prediction that the general election results will mirror the poll.

First off, using Descriptive Statistics is a cop out and riddled with flawed logic. It is fine to use Descriptive Statistics when testing a closed population, such as test scores culled from an exam a professor gives. One could compare sexes, majors, etc. and draw findings from those scores. The Gallup polls are indeed pure random samples. Our blogs did not generate random samples of replies by any means! This has been explained. You are right, this isn't a statistics course, it's a debate. Your use of statisitics is a proven failure.

I have made no such claims in my tabulation. I would never contend that the quantity of replies allows us to make any prediction as to how all sports fans, or even all NBA fans, or even fans at the blog site feel. I merely presented that results that we have available to examine. And those results indicate the Celtics have been judged to be the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA.

Now you say you would never be able to make a conclusion from the quality of replies, first right thing you have said. Yet you did make this claim before. Now you back off a bit. While the results of your statistics show Boston ahead, they are not reliable and accurate scores. Yet you want to continue to argue with the theories laid down by the mathematical geniuses of our time.

I would like to say nice try, but it really wasn’t.

Uhh...You just got refuted, again. Learn to read. Statistics owns you. Not a nice try on your part by any means.

[michaeljohn]

A few other points about your reply.

1.

I repeat his entire new article, excepting a portion that won’t be needed.


It is curious how you determined what would not be needed, because an entire section missing – the part where I introduce the notion of a trend towards the Celtics with my introduction of Blog 2(Rex), and of “neutral” replies.

It doesn't matter it's missing, the statistics were refuted then, and they're refutated again above.

Hmmm. Ignoring an opponent’s valid point. Haven’t we seen that somewhere before?

Yep, you do it all the time. See my most recent example two posts up when I replied to your point 4 about all the things you ignored. You still continue to self-own yourself. Webrats, where Amazing happens!

2.


He is basing his “victory” on the replies. this is akin to saying Orlando won last night because they were ahead 24-22 after one quarter.


What you’re implying is that we should only tabulate the replies of everyone who has seen and read all five blogs. First of all, even if someone replied to Blog 5(MJ) there is now way to know with certainty they read all five. Secondly, if we limit the tabulation to those replies posted after Blog 5(MJ), the count is 8-1 overall, and 5-1 neutral in favor of the Celtics. (Ah! Now we know why you omitted this portion of my post!). And before you try to dispute 5-1 with “Treya’s” change of heart, he has done so after the recent championship, which is a different set of circumstances. When evaluating OUR debate, he chose the Celtics.

As I have pointed out, we shouldn't be tabulating any replies. Treya is now on the Lakers side, and the debate continues. Of course, you still have the faulty notion your statistics should be used, which explains your post.

But if we were to take your objection a bit further with your Orlando analogy, you would have us only count points scored in the fourth quarter. Last time I checked, the outcome of a basketball game was determined by the CUMULATIVE score from the entire game. Therefore, 37-17 is the cumulative score. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone’s mind was changed from one blog to another (with the exception of “Bleed”).

More flawed logic. The cumulative score analogy fails. Your entire blog stands refuted. We don't have a true cumulative score because the debate stopped. All we have is a frst quarter score and you know it. Not to mention few people saw my last blog. Besides, the score is not statistically reliable, I proved it above and in the early parts of this thread.

3.

I had countless instances of support.



Really? Where? Certainly not anywhere they could be tabulated.

I told you where to look, (Learn to read what I say for crying out loud, your weakness in this is a good part of your undoing). You still may look for them and they can be tabulated. However, it is irrelevant as you failed to justify the use of your flawed statistical interpretations.



That’s right – which is why the only accurate way to determine the effectiveness of the argument is to count those that do. It is a pretty sad commentary on your alleged support that not a single Lakers fan would make that tiny extra effort to post a reply after your five pleas.

There is no accurate way to determine the effectiveness of the argument. Maybe if we count up the instances of your proven flawed logic and all the times I had to repeat myself? That would be a knockout, you'll hit the canvas quickly! Again, the Lakers fans did reply on the main page, but you want to ignore that notion. Go look, they are all there. Oops, told you this already too!


At the blog site, a reply tells you it’s been read.


No – a reply tells you that it has been read AND the reader may have been so moved by the points made to render a judgment and indicate such.

Actually, it may not have been read, many people replied and said they didn't read it. So whatever, we really have no argument here.

4.


Very few people saw my most powerful post ever!”


But apparently enough of them saw it to reply 8-1 in favor of the Celtics!

Was that the score on my last blog? How about the notion I told you I invited several Celtics people to the blog to read it and reply. You have no answer for that refutation. Your name should be "Cherry Picker". Of course we already know we can't trust your statistics, or you to read what I say.

Now on to the real fun part – a revelation so to speak!

Yep, it's going to be very fun for me, and not for you!

[michaeljohn]

As I said, this is the fun part for me, because, well, it will be seen. First thing rexhamer has to agree on is, we never agreed to have the debate moderated, or called to a vote. NEVER! He also knows I will argue it until doomsday. That's given already. Yet once again, he wants to set the rules for the debate by ending it his way! FLAWED LOGIC and easy to exploit and refute.

It all begins with this statement:


What really constitutes an internet debate? Side A makes a point, side B offers a rebuttal. Eventually, one side comes out on top on each point when the other side has no answer or concedes that issue



I am here to point out that, for the umpteenth time, you are completely wrong. But this statement now explains so much of what you have said previously. Debates are not conducted in the manner that you describe, in which two opponents go at it continually ad infinitum until one concedes. I will call this the “Last Man Standing” theory. Debates are made with presentations by each side, and then the presentations are judged.

And I will take a brief moment to note a refrain that you have used in a number of forms:

You got into a debate without rules. Maybe a moderated debate, in person, is conducted the way you say, but ours certainly isn't that way. You knew I would go at it forever. Now you want out with a victory when you are losing on all counts? LOL that is the stupidest thing you have done yet. I have refuted everything you have posted and all you do is ignore it and toss more flawed logic at me!


Once again, rexhamer wants to set the rules for the debate



We know already know you are not the least bit hesitant to practice hypocrisy, but what you have done here is an attempt to actually define the rules of the debate yourself – and you are completely wrong with that.

Oh, sorry, I proved it's you who are the hypocrite, not me.

The most common and popular debate that we are familiar with is the Presidential Debate. It is also possible that significant local debates are televised, but the point is that the format is relatively standard. Some agreement is made on presentations, questions, answers and rebuttals ahead of time. But what is common to these debates is that they come to an end. In all my years I have never seen a Presidential Debate that continued until one candidate threw up his/her arms, conceded, and walked off the stage. Following these debates, the media is full of people declaring a winner. These may be pundits and spin-meisters who are not necessarily objective, but the media is full of many that are objective. The point is that the debate is completed and people express their judgment as to who is the winner. It can also be concluded that the ultimate judges of the debate are the voters. But at some point, by somebody, the debate is judged.

The next most common form of debate is probably the high school or college team debate. In some form or other each team makes a case for a particular pro or con position on an issue. The merits of their argument are evaluated by a judge or a panel of judges. They may rate a number of aspects of the debate (presentation, preparedness, etc.), but ultimately select a winner. Here is a site that offers a number of formats for a debate

Debate (http://www.triviumpursuit.com/speech_debate/what_is_debate.htm)

One thing you will note - nowhere does it suggest the “Last Man Standing” approach. In fact, there is an entire section on ‘Judging’ debates. More evidence to confirm that my approach to a debate is the correct one.

All this applies to real life debates. It has no bearing on what we are doing.

But maybe Internet debates are different. Let’s take a look at an Internet site that is specifically dedicated to Internet Debates. It is elegantly named Debate.org | Debate, Online Debates, Internet Debates, and Debating Community (http://www.debate.org).

You will note the following at this site:

1. There is no “Last Man Standing” procedure.
2. There is a time limit on presentation of cases.
3. There is a mechanism for members of this site to vote (make a judgment) on the merits of the debate, and - you’ll love this – those judgments are tabulated!

There can be no doubt that your entire perception of what constitutes a debate, and how a winner is determined, is completely and utterly wrong. In fact, your approach to a debate is strikingly similar to Argumentum ad Nauseum. You should remember this from when I schooled you on logical fallacies. It is the practice of continually presenting the same points over and over again. Therefore, your entire approach to a debate is a logical fallacy in and of itself!!

LOL, YOU FAILED BIG TIME AGAIN! First, as explained, this debate was began without rules. Now you want to suddenly make them from a site you found. Those are the rules of debating at THAT site and THAT site alone! If our debate was conducted at that site, then yes, we adhere to those principles. Talk about who is getting schooled on logical fallacies, it's you! Yep, you want to make the rules. You want to ignore everything you are beaten with and twist the arguments with continued flawed logic.

Of course that site has no last man standing rule, they time everything! Since you have failed to address my countless instances of refutations to everything you have posted, it's pretty clear I am the last man standing. You must have 20,000 words to write to refute everything I have said, and that is quite impossible, you have too much hypocrisy and flawed logic to deal with.

Now since it's obvious the rules of that site cannot possbly be used, we are left with rexhamer eating a lot of crow. I'll remind him here. I did say earlier in this thread I would refute anything he posted, he should have learned that already when I annihilated and destroyed his last blog and the first part of this thread. I have delivered on my promise, everything he has posted today has been refuted. EVERYTHING. He refuted nothing of mine. NOTHING.

[michaeljohn]

But as I noted before, this statement is such a revelation. First of all, it can now be said that neither of us was intentionally lying about who won, considering our differing positions on winning a debate. But what is really more intriguing is this:


Sorry, I told rexhamer ages ago that I always win internet arguments.



With this revelation, it is quite possible that you have NEVER actually won an Internet debate, but merely outlasted all of your opponents with Argumentum ad Nauseum!

I won them all, been at them for years. If you can't refute what someone says, you lose. You have not refuted my refutations to your blog. I refuted this thread, twice now. People quit debates when they can't answer their opponent, because they lost. As I noted here before today's discussion commenced, you have a lot on your plate that you never addressed. 2 months running now on much of it. you had a chance to address it all, but instead chose a path of more flawed logic.



It also explains why you have been practically begging me to refute Blog 5(MJ), because you realize that, despite all the evidence supporting the Celtics, you can keep your hopes of winning (in your estimation) alive just by continuing the debate endlessly. It also explains so many of your statements. I will only note a few.


“I am looking for someone to refute me.”

“If no one refutes me, then I am correct.”

“You fight or you quit.”

“I am also winning because your entire blog has been refuted …”


I call bullshit on your logic here. What I say is true. You have chosen not to try to refute me, because if you cou'ld have, you would have. Your credibility has flown right out the window here since all you have done is spun 2 cases of flawed logic and continued avoidance of the issues.

Thus, now that Blog 5(MJ) has been refuted along with your objections to the tabulations, in summary we have the following irrefutable facts:

Brilliant! You still insist you have refuted things you never addressed! Those you did in Blog 5 (MJ) here have been refuted.So, your irrefutable facts statement died quickly. I'll stick a few more nails in the coffin.

1. We have both made our presentations through five lengthy and comprehensive blogs.
True (We agree on something, yay!)
2. We have both rested our cases.
Not true, I already proved that in an early post today.
3. The debate has been judged. If we only take neutral judges from Blog 5(MJ) the tally is 5-1 for the Celtics. Overall votes are even greater.
The debate has been judged with ignorance to statistical facts, yet again (sigh). Also, judging the debate was never an option, we have no rules!
4. I have shown this is the proper way to determine a debate winner.
You haven't even come close to this, you and your logical fallacies, eplained above.
You have lost this debate – learn to deal with it!
ROFL X 1,000!!!! No my foe, you have lost this. you are losing on every count and live in fantasy land. Your fellow Celtics fans will be so ashamed of you if they see this. I hope they don't, I am not that cruel.

If you want to continue in some fashion with the most recent events and new figures under consideration (i.e., 17-15 as opposed 17-14), you must first concede that while the numbers were “17-14”, etc., the Celtics were the most successful NBA franchise of all time. That is what OUR debate was about.
They weren't proven that and you know it. I refuted your proof above and you know it, you are just in denial of the facts.
If not, this discussion is over.
Is this an admission by you to get out once and for all and say you lost this debate?
Now, on to the Hollinger and the ESPN poll!

Ok, keep in mind those aren't my polls and I am not Hollinger, so I won't be attempting to rebut your refutations of them However....Let's see if rexhamer wants to use his replies to those to toss more flawed logic at our case. See my last paragraph below.

So, let's summarize again, where this debate has gone.

I posted a blog
Rex attempted to refute it.
I refuted that attempt.
rex objected to my use of theory
I took that part out and still refuted his blog, proving plenty of flawed logic and hypocrisy.

rex still hasn't dealt with my refutations. I appear to be the last man standing. Instead of dealing with it, he crafts this thread riddled with flawed logic.
rexhamer is a hypocrite, and uses flawed logic to call me one.
He ignores what I post and claims I do that to him.

I should tabulate the instances of flawed logic he has presented, along with his hypocrisy. Gee, what about the things I had to repeat, and the things he has ignored? Simply overwhelming.

Give it up rehamer. Address what you ignore or quit, that simple. If you go off on another tangent you are a bigger fool than we know you are already. Annoy me enough and you will have a custom avatar and user title of my choice. We are not going to put up with your crap here anymore and avoidance of my refuatations of your arguments again. Period. If you don't like my insults thrown at you tough shit. You brought them on yourself, and this is after all Webrats, Fun and Stupidity at its best.

[rexhamer]

Boy, that was good for a laugh. Of all the bizarre things you said, I think "I didn't rest me case" was the best. When someone types the words "I rest my case", and then claims they didn't rest their case, it is obvious that any possibility of intelligent debate is out the window. That sums up your lengthy reply pretty well.

The buzzer has sounded.
The final whistle has blown.
The clock has run out.
The marching band is on the field.
The fat lady has sung.
The polls are closed.
The votes are in.

You lost.

I am quite aware that you will debate this until doomsday, an obvious admission of your obsession with this subject. I am completely comfortable in the manner in which the debate was conducted and judged. If you are not, that's your problem.

Rexhamer has left the building!

[michaeljohn]

I got my ass whipped, so I am going to use flawed logic one final time and try and save face, and still try to claim I won!

Fixed for accuracy. You got beat. Live with it whelp. Good riddance to you. Thread closed. :lockd:

michaeljohn 1
rexhamer 0

By an overwhelming knockout.

Oh, and one final tidbit. If my case was closed, as he says his was, how come he is allowed of make all of those posts yesterday with new information, and I am not allowed to fight back? Of course you know the answer, his logic is always flawed! No Boston blog forthcoming anytime soon until rexhamer mans up and admits he got beat. He has conceded he lost by his actions but we need to see it like this, even though we all know it:


I lost this debate to michaeljohn

Also, since his arguments have clearly been defeated, I will in the future when arging this topic anywhere refer to the fact that 9-2, 17-3, and 14-15 have been refuted by me already, and that the defender of those notions finally decided to walk away 2 months after they were posted without ever bothering to fight them, and that he wasted those 2 months arguing every possible notion under the sun except for them. Result? He still got his ass handed to him on a platter with his new tangents.


If anyone wishes to comment, take it to the smack talk thread.