(10-28-2016 01:53 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 09:02 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  Think I'm going to step back and take a break and let this forum continue with these ludicrous posts about Tiger BB such as this one that takes the cake:

"You also said scoring 6 less points a game makes you less likely to win which is poppycock "

I had said "scoring 6 less points a game in and of itself makes you less likely to win."

That type of ignorance is hard to argue with.

Be interesting to see whose sabbatical is shorter, yours or TC's. My money's on you.

And as someone else pointed out to you when you originally made the statement above, scoring six points a game less only makes you less likely to win if everything else remains the same, therefore, "scoring 6 less points a game "in and of itself" does NOT make you less likely to win. For it to be the case "in and of itself," any other concurrent change (like holding your opponent to 7 less points per game) would have to have no effect on the outcome -- and, of course, that's not the case.

You gave your posters mixed up, your logic is flawed and I have explained who my friend is before; a couple of you seem to think that we are the same poster. Not true.

"In and of itself" in this context means a singular set of circumstances: in this case, if the Tigers score 6 less points a game in this vacumn where nothing else changes (for instance the slower pace causes the other team to score less points per game) then, by all logic, the Tigers have an greatly increased chance of losing more games.

It's a fairly simple concept to understand if you have reading comprehension, can think logically and know how to apply those conclusions to basketball games. Obviously, you can't do that.

(10-29-2016 01:22 AM)Penny Lane Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 01:53 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 09:02 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  Think I'm going to step back and take a break and let this forum continue with these ludicrous posts about Tiger BB such as this one that takes the cake:

"You also said scoring 6 less points a game makes you less likely to win which is poppycock "

I had said "scoring 6 less points a game in and of itself makes you less likely to win."

That type of ignorance is hard to argue with.

Be interesting to see whose sabbatical is shorter, yours or TC's. My money's on you.

And as someone else pointed out to you when you originally made the statement above, scoring six points a game less only makes you less likely to win if everything else remains the same, therefore, "scoring 6 less points a game "in and of itself" does NOT make you less likely to win. For it to be the case "in and of itself," any other concurrent change (like holding your opponent to 7 less points per game) would have to have no effect on the outcome -- and, of course, that's not the case.

You gave your posters mixed up, your logic is flawed and I have explained who my friend is before; a couple of you seem to think that we are the same poster. Not true.

"In and of itself" in this context means a singular set of circumstances: in this case, if the Tigers score 6 less points a game in this vacumn where nothing else changes (for instance the slower pace causes the other team to score less points per game) then, by all logic, the Tigers have an greatly increased chance of losing more games.

It's a fairly simple concept to understand if you have reading comprehension, can think logically and know how to apply those conclusions to basketball games. Obviously, you can't do that.

I'm seeing : ; ( ) , . " '
but not one !

How 'bout after the last sentence?

(10-29-2016 01:22 AM)Penny Lane Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 01:53 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 09:02 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  Think I'm going to step back and take a break and let this forum continue with these ludicrous posts about Tiger BB such as this one that takes the cake:

"You also said scoring 6 less points a game makes you less likely to win which is poppycock "

I had said "scoring 6 less points a game in and of itself makes you less likely to win."

That type of ignorance is hard to argue with.

Be interesting to see whose sabbatical is shorter, yours or TC's. My money's on you.

And as someone else pointed out to you when you originally made the statement above, scoring six points a game less only makes you less likely to win if everything else remains the same, therefore, "scoring 6 less points a game "in and of itself" does NOT make you less likely to win. For it to be the case "in and of itself," any other concurrent change (like holding your opponent to 7 less points per game) would have to have no effect on the outcome -- and, of course, that's not the case.

You gave your posters mixed up, your logic is flawed and I have explained who my friend is before; a couple of you seem to think that we are the same poster. Not true.

"In and of itself" in this context means a singular set of circumstances: in this case, if the Tigers score 6 less points a game in this vacumn where nothing else changes (for instance the slower pace causes the other team to score less points per game) then, by all logic, the Tigers have an greatly increased chance of losing more games.

It's a fairly simple concept to understand if you have reading comprehension, can think logically and know how to apply those conclusions to basketball games. Obviously, you can't do that.

The phrase is synonymous with the term "intrinsically." If something is intrinsically true, it is true regardless of anything else.

And I see I was right about your sabbatical, too. Why don't you try it again. I'll time you. Go.