[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

you know, looking at the rule book again, and trying to remember back to the dark ages when I studied formal logic, I'm wondering about carefully examining the words used.

The book says that a dribble is ball movement that yadda, yadda, yadda...

It does not say that all ball movement that yadda yadda yadda is a dribble.

Is that significant?

I mean, suppose you said, "A cat is a mammal that has four legs, pointed ears, and eyes that glow in the dark." Could you then say "Look, it's a mammal, has four legs, pointed ears and eyes that glow in the dark so it must be a cat?" Well, no! It might be a lemur, certain types of dogs, and so forth and so on.

Just because a dribble is a certain type of movement doesn't mean that all of those types of movement are dribbles, does it?

My idea here is that you are now asking "How do you know that the animal on the cat food commercial was not a lemur?"

My answer is "Well, maybe I don't with absolute certainty, but it sure looked like a cat to me. Must we have a zoologist perform a dna test before I can say it is a cat?