Part 1 - question #64

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just because someone several posts before mentioned a center doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the comments were exclusively about 3-man. Without further comment, someone could interpret his statements to apply to 2-man.

In fact, Zoochy mentioned bouncing the ball up the sideline by the lead. So, he was possibly also talking about 2-man.

You must really need some coffee/sugar/something because you are starting to read and reason like Rut.

Let's recap and trace the discussion:

1. Zoochy writes post #11. Therein he mentions the Center, so he is obviously discussing 3-man. He continues to write about the Lead bouncing the ball for a sideline throw-in below the FT line extended.

2. I quote from his post (#11) and respond DIRECTLY TO his statement about the Lead administering a sideline throw-in by saying that is NOT an NFHS mechanic, but rather an NCAA mechanic. I do this in post #16.

3. In the very next post in the thread, #17, you question the correctness of my statement, clearly without reading Zoochy's entire post carefully enough to grasp that the two of us are discussion 3-man.

4. Bob jumps in at post #19 and tries to clue you in that we are talking about 3-man.

5. You completely ignore Bob and continue to along in post #20 by quoting the 2-man mechanic.

6. I come back in post #27 and tell you that you made a faulty assumption by thinking that we were discussing 2-man. I didn't say that anything that you wrote other than post #17 was incorrect. I just implied that what you wrote doesn't apply and that you should have known that. As proof that we are thinking 3-man, I quote from Zoochy's post (#11) and point out that he mentions the Center official. You definitely seem to have failed to notice that when jumping in.

7. Despite that you cling to your position with Rut-like tenacity which exhibits no sense of logical reasoning by again replying in the very next post (#28) that simply because someone sometime before mentioned the Center official doesn't mean that any of the other comments were necessarily about 3-man. HELLO...McFLY!!!! The post that mentioned the CENTER OFFICIAL was the very one that I quoted and to which I directly responded!!! I clearly wasn't directing my statement at any of the other comments. By quoting Zoochy, it should have been crystal clear exactly to whom I was writing and that BOTH of us were talking about 3-man.
Finally, the best part is that you finish with a classic example of circular Rut reasoning by actually stating that the very mechanic Zoochy mentions that started this whole sequence when I responded that it isn't proper at the NFHS level (FOR 3-MAN--which was clearly the context in which it was written) is really evidence that he was talking about 2-man!

Lah--me!

Congratulations, you are now an honorary Rut poster.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You must really need some coffee/sugar/something because you are starting to read and reason like Rut.

Let's recap and trace the discussion:

1. Zoochy writes post #11. Therein he mentions the Center, so he is obviously discussing 3-man. He continues to write about the Lead bouncing the ball for a sideline throw-in below the FT line extended.

So, he posted conflicting pieces of info....he mentioned a 3-person postion and a 2-person mechanic. And we're supposed to ASSume only one of them is the correct context....based on what YOU ASSumed.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2. I quote from his post (#11) and respond DIRECTLY TO his statement about the Lead administering a sideline throw-in by saying that is NOT an NFHS mechanic, but rather an NCAA mechanic. I do this in post #16.

Again, making the ASSumption that he was talking stricktly about 3-man and not mixing them up. Of all people, I'd expect you to have every statement fully qualified and complete and not rely on implied contexts.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3. In the very next post in the thread, #17, you question the correctness of my statement, clearly without reading Zoochy's entire post carefully enough to grasp that the two of us are discussion 3-man.

You categorically and incorrectly said it was only and NCAA mechanic when it is an NFHS mechanic...in two man. Your quote emphasized only the point about the lead bouncing the ball up...as if that was your focuc. If you meant 3-man NCAA mechanic, then say so.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

4. Bob jumps in at post #19 and tries to clue you in that we are talking about 3-man.

5. You completely ignore Bob and continue to along in post #20 by quoting the 2-man mechanic.

You're ASSuming I saw post #19 before I typed post #20. If you'll note the time stamps, I was typing post #20 when bob was typing post #19.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

6. I come back in post #27 and tell you that you made a faulty assumption by thinking that we were discussing 2-man. I didn't say that anything that you wrote other than post #17 was incorrect. I just implied that what you wrote doesn't apply and that you should have known that. As proof that we are thinking 3-man, I quote from Zoochy's post (#11) and point out that he mentions the Center official. You definitely seem to have failed to notice that when jumping in.

Again, your ASSumption. For someone that likes to have every step in their life spelled out for them, you're making a lot of ASSumptions and not completely stating your case. Again, for the reading impaired, Zoochy's statements mentioned a 3-person position and a 2-person mechanic.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

7. Despite that you cling to your position with Rut-like tenacity which exhibits no sense of logical reasoning by again replying in the very next post (#28) that simply because someone sometime before mentioned the Center official doesn't mean that any of the other comments were necessarily about 3-man. HELLO...McFLY!!!! The post that mentioned the CENTER OFFICIAL was the very one that I quoted and to which I directly responded!!! I clearly wasn't directing my statement at any of the other comments. By quoting Zoochy, it should have been crystal clear exactly to whom I was writing and that BOTH of us were talking about 3-man.
Finally, the best part is that you finish with a classic example of circular Rut reasoning by actually stating that the very mechanic Zoochy mentions that started this whole sequence when I responded that it isn't proper at the NFHS level (FOR 3-MAN--which was clearly the context in which it was written) is really evidence that he was talking about 2-man!

Lah--me!

Congratulations, you are now an honorary Rut poster.

The context of the thread was not about 2-man or 3-man. It was about something else entirely. Then it morphed into a discussion of when the ball can be bounced for a throwin or not. Then it added discussion including a center official. It changed directions so many times, you have no bases for insisting it was only about one thing.

All that you've proven here is that you are an honorary ASSumer.