Aluminum bats in Major Leagues?

External Since: Jun 29, 2003 Posts: 332

In article <DbKcnQ4uh6f5PGKjXTWJhw RemoveThis @comcast.com>,
"McDuck" <wallymcduckDELETEME RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen RemoveThis @alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message

>> >> I don't think so. I think cheating, by definition, requires knowledge.
>> >> Cheating implies more than mere rulebreaking; it implies intentional
>> >> rulebreaking -- or, more specifically, intentional rulebreaking to gain
>> >> an advantage.

>> >You may think that, and you are entitled to think that, and in some
>> >contexts, you could convince other people to think it. But hitting with a
>> >corked bat in baseball is cheating without reference to intent.

>> Ah. I forgot, you were appointed to rewrite the dictionary.

>Sarcasm is the last refuge of scoundrels. <grin> But you are also wrong
>about the dictionary.
>cheat >v. 1 act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an
>advantage. ->deprive of something by deceitful or unfair means. 2 avoid
>(something undesirable) by luck or skill: she cheated death in a spectacular
>crash. >n. 1 a person who cheats. 2 an act of cheating.
>-ORIGIN ME: shortening of escheat

>Nothing about intent in the Oxford electronic definition provided above
>(full entry, no editing).

Well, actually, there is something about intent there. "Dishonestly"
implies intent. Even more strongly, so does "deceitful."

>By the way, if you happen to know what "escheat"
>means, you also understand that escheat does not depend on intent.

It doesn't involve rulebreaking, either, so it's not really relevant, is it?

> (For
>those who don't know, it is the passage of property to the state when the
>deceased has not written a will that specifies who he wants to get the
>property.

Actually, it's the passage of property to the state when there are no
heirs. Failure to draft a will does not cause property to escheat.

---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent nieporen RemoveThis @alumni.princeton.edu

External Since: Jun 28, 2003 Posts: 58

"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen DeleteThis @alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-CFF08A.20053030062003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <DbKcnQ4uh6f5PGKjXTWJhw DeleteThis @comcast.com>,
> "McDuck" <wallymcduckDELETEME DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
> >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen DeleteThis @alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>
> >> >> I don't think so. I think cheating, by definition, requires
knowledge.
> >> >> Cheating implies more than mere rulebreaking; it implies intentional
> >> >> rulebreaking -- or, more specifically, intentional rulebreaking to
gain
> >> >> an advantage.
>
> >> >You may think that, and you are entitled to think that, and in some
> >> >contexts, you could convince other people to think it. But hitting
with a
> >> >corked bat in baseball is cheating without reference to intent.
>
> >> Ah. I forgot, you were appointed to rewrite the dictionary.
>
> >Sarcasm is the last refuge of scoundrels. <grin> But you are also wrong
> >about the dictionary.
> >cheat >v. 1 act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an
> >advantage. ->deprive of something by deceitful or unfair means. 2 avoid
> >(something undesirable) by luck or skill: she cheated death in a
spectacular
> >crash. >n. 1 a person who cheats. 2 an act of cheating.
> >-ORIGIN ME: shortening of escheat
>
> >Nothing about intent in the Oxford electronic definition provided above
> >(full entry, no editing).
>
> Well, actually, there is something about intent there. "Dishonestly"
> implies intent. Even more strongly, so does "deceitful."

You did not know the meaning of a simple English word and made a sarcastic
post saying I made up word meanings. I post the definition showing you were
wrong --- not a little wrong, not a lot wrong, but 100 percent wrong. Now,
instead of apologizing for being a total jerk, you made a new and even more
ridiculous claim. Classy guy.

Just for the record, the first quoted definition says "act dishonestly ***or
unfairly***." The second says "deceitful ***or unfair*** means." Whatever
implication you can read into "dishonestly" or "deceitful" is irrelevant
because your claim was that cheating ***requires*** "intentional" rule
breaking, not "mere" rule breaking. "Unfairly" has no plausible indication
of intent. It is clearly unfair for Sosa to use am illegal bat, whatever his
intent. So your point is utter nonsense. More importantly, you fully
understand it is nonsense. No one in this thread ever suggested that a cheat
cannot intent to be dishonest. The issue was whether a dishonest intent was
required. I said it was not required, you told me I was making up the
meaning of words, and I proved you were dead wrong. Instead of taking your
lumps like a man, you act like a total jerk.

I can understand your embarrassment at being dead wrong after mocking
someone who was right, but that's the way it goes when you are a jerk, don't
know the meaning of common words, and still call people out.
McDuck

>
> >By the way, if you happen to know what "escheat"
> >means, you also understand that escheat does not depend on intent.
>
> It doesn't involve rulebreaking, either, so it's not really relevant, is
it?
>
Do you know what "ORIGIN ME: shortening of escheat" in a dictionary means? I
guess not, from your failure to see its relevance. It is telling you where
the word came from --- the root of the word in common parlance. And the root
indicates that "intent" is not an element of the word "cheat." I noted this
only as an aside. It is possible for the meaning of words to stray, even a
long way, from their roots. But the relevance of the root in understanding
the meaning of a word should be obvious to anyone with a middle school
education. That you don't understand this is no crime. Lots of people don't
know lots of stuff. But you should not be telling people they have their own
special dictionary when you don't even know how to look up words in a
dictionary.