from a mistake

Post by Stefan Ram

1) Our team scored a goal from a mistake.
2) Our team got a goal from a mistake.
Context: Football/soccer
Our opponents made a mistake and as a result we managed to score a goal.

Better, in my view, would be

"Our team scored a goal because our opponents made a mistake."

Peter T. Daniels

2021-12-02 15:18:33 UTC

1) Our team scored a goal from a mistake.
2) Our team got a goal from a mistake.
Context: Football/soccer
Our opponents made a mistake and as a result we managed to score a goal.
Which of the sentences '1' and '2' are grammatical, meaningful and match the meaning given above?

Doesn't that describe basically every point scored in every (athletic)
competition?

bil...@shaw.ca

2021-12-03 07:22:17 UTC

Doesn't that describe basically every point scored in every (athletic)
competition?

No, many points are scored in sports as a result of good play rather than opponents' mistakes.
In any sport you learn to understand, you can easily see whether points are scored due to offensive
skill, defensive failure or a combination of the two. Or by fluke, sometimes. For the offensive skill,
video-google [best messi goals]. For tactical skills, find a championship snooker match.

bill

Peter T. Daniels

2021-12-03 12:53:24 UTC

Post by ***@shaw.ca

Doesn't that describe basically every point scored in every (athletic)
competition?

I guess that's why baseball is best. If everyone plays perfectly,
no runs will ever be scored.

In what competition sport -- i.e., not individual field events (as in
track & field) is that not the case?

Tony Cooper

2021-12-03 13:52:21 UTC

Post by ***@shaw.ca

Doesn't that describe basically every point scored in every (athletic)
competition?

To me, a "mistake" means something that was done in error and not just
a play that allowed the other team to advance or score.

A "mistake" in (American) football would be a team that punts on third
down thinking it was the fourth down. If the team punts on fourth
down, and the other team runs it back for a score, that's not a
mistake on the part of the kicking team.

--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

Peter T. Daniels

2021-12-03 16:02:14 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by ***@shaw.ca

Doesn't that describe basically every point scored in every (athletic)
competition?

To me, a "mistake" means something that was done in error and not just
a play that allowed the other team to advance or score.
A "mistake" in (American) football would be a team that punts on third
down thinking it was the fourth down. If the team punts on fourth
down, and the other team runs it back for a score, that's not a
mistake on the part of the kicking team.

In baseball a mistake is throwing a pitch right down the middle of the
strike zone, and a mistake is hitting such a pitch into the stands -- just
outside the foul line. Or a powerful line drive directly to where a fielder
is waiting for it. Or, for that matter, swinging and missing entirely Ior
swinging at a ball outside the strike zone).

I saw the last few minutes of some football game on Sunday (evening
or night), because it had gone on beyond its allotted time. For various
reasons, the kicker had to kick the winning three-pointer four times.
One of the times, the ball caromed off one of the uprights. (The other
three kicks were good, including the one that won the game.) They
were from various distances because _both_ teams managed to get
five-yard penalties while this was taking place. That one time was a
mistake, Shirley.

Tony Cooper

2021-12-03 17:05:24 UTC

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:02:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Tony Cooper
To me, a "mistake" means something that was done in error and not just
a play that allowed the other team to advance or score.
A "mistake" in (American) football would be a team that punts on third
down thinking it was the fourth down. If the team punts on fourth
down, and the other team runs it back for a score, that's not a
mistake on the part of the kicking team.

I would not consider either to be a "mistake". That implies that a
pitcher and a batter have enough control to direct the ball precisely.

A fast ball, right down the middle, can be an intentional pitch if the
pitcher thinks the batter can't hit his fast ball.

A batter with two strikes who attempts to bunt but fouls is called out
even though a foul ball would not result in being called out if it was
not an attempted bunt.

If the batter thought he only had one strike already called, the bunt
attempt would be a mistake. The mistake was not knowing the strike
count.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I saw the last few minutes of some football game on Sunday (evening
or night), because it had gone on beyond its allotted time. For various
reasons, the kicker had to kick the winning three-pointer four times.
One of the times, the ball caromed off one of the uprights. (The other
three kicks were good, including the one that won the game.)

The two kicks that did split the uprights were not "good" if the play
was disallowed due to a penalty. "Good" means the kick counts.

The game was not extended because it went beyond it's alloted time. It
was extended because the score was tied at the end of the alloted
time. The overtime periods were part of the alloted time.

--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

Peter T. Daniels

2021-12-03 20:27:22 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:02:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

I would not consider either to be a "mistake". That implies that a
pitcher and a batter have enough control to direct the ball precisely.
A fast ball, right down the middle, can be an intentional pitch if the
pitcher thinks the batter can't hit his fast ball.
A batter with two strikes who attempts to bunt but fouls is called out
even though a foul ball would not result in being called out if it was
not an attempted bunt.
If the batter thought he only had one strike already called, the bunt
attempt would be a mistake. The mistake was not knowing the strike
count.

The two kicks that did split the uprights were not "good" if the play
was disallowed due to a penalty. "Good" means the kick counts.
The game was not extended because it went beyond it's alloted time. It
was extended because the score was tied at the end of the alloted
time. The overtime periods were part of the alloted time.

Well, moron, I'm going to ignore all your obfuscations attempting to
misconstrue the word "mistake" and focus on the notion of "allotted
time." If the schedule says that *60 Minutes* was to begin at 7 pm,
but it begins at 7:38 instead, the football game has overrun its allotted
time by 38 minutes (including commercials).

(That was not the particular program I had tuned in to see; it's just
an example.)

Tony Cooper

2021-12-03 20:57:13 UTC

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:27:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:02:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

I would not consider either to be a "mistake". That implies that a
pitcher and a batter have enough control to direct the ball precisely.
A fast ball, right down the middle, can be an intentional pitch if the
pitcher thinks the batter can't hit his fast ball.
A batter with two strikes who attempts to bunt but fouls is called out
even though a foul ball would not result in being called out if it was
not an attempted bunt.
If the batter thought he only had one strike already called, the bunt
attempt would be a mistake. The mistake was not knowing the strike
count.

The two kicks that did split the uprights were not "good" if the play
was disallowed due to a penalty. "Good" means the kick counts.
The game was not extended because it went beyond it's alloted time. It
was extended because the score was tied at the end of the alloted
time. The overtime periods were part of the alloted time.

No, the game did not exceed its alloted time. The game was tied at
the end of the "regular" period, and the network covered the
additional time for the overtime periods.

The "allotted time" is only what is published in the TV schedule. The
network does not allot a specific amount of time. Anyone who goes by
the published time-end is either a fool or unfamiliar with televised
football.

"The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" has started late many times on
Thursday Night when NFL Thursday Night Football games ran long.

Had the entire game exceeded its alloted time, "60 Minutes" would have
started at 7 PM (your local time). The memorable time this happened
was in 1968 when NBC switched to the movie "Heidi" when the Oakland
Raiders vs New York Jets were playing with 65 seconds left in the
game. (The Raiders scored two touchdowns in 9 seconds of play to win
the game.)

This so enraged fans that no network today allocates a specific amount
of time for a televised game. Currently, the "allotted time" is
"whatever it takes".

--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

Sam Plusnet

2021-12-04 01:37:05 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Well, moron

<sigh>

--
Sam Plusnet

Kerr-Mudd, John

2021-12-04 12:21:53 UTC

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 01:37:05 +0000

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Well, moron

<sigh>

'Stupid is as stupid does' (that well known philosopher of the 20th
century, Forest Gump - oh, actually it was his mum.)

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Peter T. Daniels

2021-12-04 14:05:35 UTC

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Well, moron

<sigh>

Were the paragraph and the remark not moronic?

Peter Moylan

2021-12-04 22:32:01 UTC

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Well, moron

<sigh>

Were the paragraph and the remark not moronic?

They were. (Not moronic.)

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Tony Cooper

2021-12-04 21:31:50 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:02:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

I would not consider either to be a "mistake". That implies that a
pitcher and a batter have enough control to direct the ball precisely.
A fast ball, right down the middle, can be an intentional pitch if the
pitcher thinks the batter can't hit his fast ball.
A batter with two strikes who attempts to bunt but fouls is called out
even though a foul ball would not result in being called out if it was
not an attempted bunt.
If the batter thought he only had one strike already called, the bunt
attempt would be a mistake. The mistake was not knowing the strike
count.

The two kicks that did split the uprights were not "good" if the play
was disallowed due to a penalty. "Good" means the kick counts.

Interesting. In Canadian football, if a kicked ball hits an upright (or the
crossbar), there are two possible outcomes of the kick.
1. If the ball bounces such as to go between the upright. It's a score.
2. If it bounces such as to not go between the uprights, it's considered
a 'dead ball', and the play ends.

That is the same in US football. In the game cited, though, three
plays were nullified by penalties. The effect is that those three
plays didn't happen, so it didn't make any difference if the ball hit
the uprights. There was only one "good" kick.

The matchup was between the Green Bay Packers and the Cincinnati
Bengals. The Packers won 25 to 22 on Mason Crosby's field goal, and
that field goal was the fourth attempt.

There's an interesting sidebar to this. The NFL has the "Dawson Rule"
that is in effect if the kicked ball hits the uprights and goes
through them to hit to hit the curved stanchion that supports the
goal. Under the Dawson Rule, even if the ball bounces back into the
field of play the kick counts and the play is over. Once the ball
passes the uprights, and between them, the kick is good.

The "Dawson" is Phil Dawson who was the kicker for the Cleveland
Browns. In 2007, in a game against the Baltimore Ravens his kick
passed between the uprights and bounced off the stanchion back into
the field of play. It was ruled "good" after some debate by the
referees. The NFL later codified it as a rule.

The "curved stanchion" is shown in this image:
Loading Image...

--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

Peter T. Daniels

2021-12-04 21:37:30 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:02:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

The two kicks that did split the uprights were not "good" if the play
was disallowed due to a penalty. "Good" means the kick counts.

You really refuse to use ordinary English in ordinary ways. A kick
that goes between the uprights is a good kick. Whether it happens
to conform to the rules regarding counting it in a score has no effect
on its quality.

Similarly, if a broadcaster has allotted, say, four hours to a football
game, but the game broadcast takes 4 1/2 hours, the game has
exceeded its allotted time, regardless of rules regarding what to
do in case of a tie.

lar3ryca

2021-12-04 22:43:13 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:02:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

The two kicks that did split the uprights were not "good" if the play
was disallowed due to a penalty. "Good" means the kick counts.

Football jargon is not ordinary English. A penalty nullifies any gains, if
it is not declined by the opposition. That means that a good field goal
attempt or a good convert attempt is one that results in 1 or 3 points.
This is true for any play, whether it would have resulted in a score or not.
Yards gained are not gained if a penalty is applied. A touchdown is not a
touchdown if a penalty occurred on the play.

Consider: The ball is on the 1-yard line. The play results in the quarterback
crossing the goal line. But there is a penalty. The offense was called for
illegal procedure, because one of the front line guys moved before the
ball was snapped. No touchdown. The touchdown was not good.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Similarly, if a broadcaster has allotted, say, four hours to a football
game, but the game broadcast takes 4 1/2 hours, the game has
exceeded its allotted time, regardless of rules regarding what to
do in case of a tie.

It has exceeded the time allotted by the TV or radio station. It has NOT
exceeded the time allotted for the game, which is counted as 1 hour of
play for 'regulation time', and extra time for any overtime required.

Saying that the _game_ has exceeded the allotted time because the
broadcaster only allowed a certain amount of time to show it, is like
saying it exceeded the time allotted by me because I had a date at a
certain time.

Tony Cooper

2021-12-04 23:10:53 UTC

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:37:30 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:02:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

The two kicks that did split the uprights were not "good" if the play
was disallowed due to a penalty. "Good" means the kick counts.

Let's add "good" to the ever-growing list of words you do not
understand. "Good", in this context, means "successful". If it does
not result in a score, it is not successful. It is not a description
of the trajectory of the kicked football.

A completed pass, or any other play, is not "good" if the play is
nullified by a penalty.

The broadcaster does not allot a pre-determined period of time to a
football game. The broadcast will last until the game is over
regardless of the amount of time required for the game to be
completed.

The tie at the end of regulation requires one or more overtime periods
in football, but it's possible for a game to run long in regulation.
In baseball rain delays can cause a game to run long.

This is demonstrably the case based on the many, many televised games
that have required overtimes or extra innings, and the programs
scheduled after those games were delayed. In the case of a "live"
following program, the following program is picked up at the point
where the game coverage ended. A pre-recorded program may be shown in
its entirity.

What you see in the newspaper schedule or the TV guide, or in another
source, is the estimated amount of time. It is not the alloted time.
The English I use is the "ordinary" English used in circumstances I'm
speaking or writing about. You should try that sometime.

--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

Silvano

2021-12-06 12:21:29 UTC

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 16:31:50 -0500

Post by Tony Cooper
There's an interesting sidebar to this. The NFL has the "Dawson Rule"
that is in effect if the kicked ball hits the uprights and goes
through them to hit to hit the curved stanchion that supports the
goal. Under the Dawson Rule, even if the ball bounces back into the
field of play the kick counts and the play is over. Once the ball
passes the uprights, and between them, the kick is good.

[]
This rule does *not* apply in snooker!

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. How often do *snooker*
players *kick* a ball?

Tony Cooper

2021-12-06 13:12:25 UTC

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:21:29 +0100, Silvano

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 16:31:50 -0500

[]
This rule does *not* apply in snooker!

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. How often do *snooker*
players *kick* a ball?

Sometimes, context and creative thinking can solve what seems to be a
riddle in this group. While I know nothing about snooker, and even
less about famous snookerers, it was quite apparant that this comment
was a reference to a snooker supremo.

A quick Google shows that Steve Dawson is the Chief Executive Officer
of the World Snooker organization.

--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

Paul Wolff

2021-12-06 13:38:29 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:21:29 +0100, Silvano

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 16:31:50 -0500

[]
This rule does *not* apply in snooker!

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. How often do *snooker*
players *kick* a ball?

On the other hand, sometimes a snooker player suffers a bad kick on his
ball, and may then ask the referee to rub it for him and make it better.

Post by Tony Cooper
A quick Google shows that Steve Dawson is the Chief Executive Officer
of the World Snooker organization.

--
Paul

Kerr-Mudd, John

2021-12-06 16:43:24 UTC

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 08:12:25 -0500

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:21:29 +0100, Silvano

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 16:31:50 -0500

[]
This rule does *not* apply in snooker!

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. How often do *snooker*
players *kick* a ball?

If the ball rattles back out of the pocket, that's not a score.

Post by Tony Cooper
Sometimes, context and creative thinking can solve what seems to be a
riddle in this group. While I know nothing about snooker, and even
less about famous snookerers, it was quite apparant that this comment
was a reference to a snooker supremo.

It wasn't really apparant; it might have been abherent.

Post by Tony Cooper
A quick Google shows that Steve Dawson is the Chief Executive Officer
of the World Snooker organization.

Sadly for my apparent clever Obscure Reference; I did not know this.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

lar3ryca

2021-12-06 17:50:19 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 08:12:25 -0500

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:21:29 +0100, Silvano

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 16:31:50 -0500

There's an interesting sidebar to this. The NFL has the "Dawson Rule"
that is in effect if the kicked ball hits the uprights and goes
through them to hit to hit the curved stanchion that supports the
goal. Under the Dawson Rule, even if the ball bounces back into the
field of play the kick counts and the play is over. Once the ball
passes the uprights, and between them, the kick is good.

[]
This rule does *not* apply in snooker!

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. How often do *snooker*
players *kick* a ball?

If the ball rattles back out of the pocket, that's not a score.

It wasn't really apparant; it might have been abherent.

Post by Tony Cooper
A quick Google shows that Steve Dawson is the Chief Executive Officer
of the World Snooker organization.

Sadly for my apparent clever Obscure Reference; I did not know this.

Wow! I often see accidental puns, but this may be the first time I have seen
a quite clever, accidental obscure reference.

Tony Cooper

2021-12-06 19:39:24 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 08:12:25 -0500

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:21:29 +0100, Silvano

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 16:31:50 -0500

[]
This rule does *not* apply in snooker!

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. How often do *snooker*
players *kick* a ball?

If the ball rattles back out of the pocket, that's not a score.

It wasn't really apparant; it might have been abherent.

Post by Tony Cooper
A quick Google shows that Steve Dawson is the Chief Executive Officer
of the World Snooker organization.

Sadly for my apparent clever Obscure Reference; I did not know this.

Wow! I often see accidental puns, but this may be the first time I have seen
a quite clever, accidental obscure reference.

Just wait. Ken may decide later to take credit for the clever
reference.

He was just trying to snooker us by his disclaimer.

obAue: Is "snooker us" used to mean "fool us" in the UK or other
parts of the world where snooker is actually known as a sport?

Which begs the question "Is snooker a sport?"

--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

musika

2021-12-06 20:16:47 UTC

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:50:19 -0800 (PST), lar3ryca

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 08:12:25 -0500 Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:21:29 +0100, Silvano

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 16:31:50 -0500 Tony Cooper

There's an interesting sidebar to this. The NFL has the
"Dawson Rule" that is in effect if the kicked ball hits
the uprights and goes through them to hit to hit the
curved stanchion that supports the goal. Under the Dawson
Rule, even if the ball bounces back into the field of
play the kick counts and the play is over. Once the ball
passes the uprights, and between them, the kick is good.

[] This rule does *not* apply in snooker!

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. How often do
*snooker* players *kick* a ball?

If the ball rattles back out of the pocket, that's not a score.

Post by Tony Cooper
Sometimes, context and creative thinking can solve what seems
to be a riddle in this group. While I know nothing about
snooker, and even less about famous snookerers, it was quite
apparant that this comment was a reference to a snooker
supremo.

It wasn't really apparant; it might have been abherent.

Post by Tony Cooper
A quick Google shows that Steve Dawson is the Chief Executive
Officer of the World Snooker organization.

Sadly for my apparent clever Obscure Reference; I did not know this.

Wow! I often see accidental puns, but this may be the first time I
have seen a quite clever, accidental obscure reference.

Just wait. Ken may decide later to take credit for the clever
reference.
He was just trying to snooker us by his disclaimer.
obAue: Is "snooker us" used to mean "fool us" in the UK or other
parts of the world where snooker is actually known as a sport?
Which begs the question "Is snooker a sport?"

No.
To be snookered is the equivalent of USE "behind the 8 ball" or the golf
term "stymied".
Yes, snooker is a sport. I know this because I can watch it on Sky Sports.

--
Ray
UK

lar3ryca

2021-12-06 20:34:46 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 08:12:25 -0500

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:21:29 +0100, Silvano

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 16:31:50 -0500

[]
This rule does *not* apply in snooker!

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. How often do *snooker*
players *kick* a ball?

If the ball rattles back out of the pocket, that's not a score.

It wasn't really apparant; it might have been abherent.

Post by Tony Cooper
A quick Google shows that Steve Dawson is the Chief Executive Officer
of the World Snooker organization.

Sadly for my apparent clever Obscure Reference; I did not know this.

Wow! I often see accidental puns, but this may be the first time I have seen
a quite clever, accidental obscure reference.

Just wait. Ken may decide later to take credit for the clever
reference.
He was just trying to snooker us by his disclaimer.
obAue: Is "snooker us" used to mean "fool us" in the UK or other
parts of the world where snooker is actually known as a sport?

It can have the meaning of "fool us" or "tricked us", but the primary meaning of
snooker, in a non-pool setting, in my opinion, is being left in a bad position, but
not necessarily because someone tricked you.

"I lost the note I made, so I was snookered, and couldn't get to the meeting."

Which begs the question "Is snooker a sport?"

obAue indeed: Shirley you mean 'raises the question'.

Is a game a sport? What are the criteria for classification?
A sport is "an activity in which players or teams compete against each other,
usually an activity that involves physical effort"

Snooker is a competitive game, and does require physical effort, albeit far
less strenuous effort. How much effort is required to make a game a sport?

Personally, I think it's more of a sport than any of the so-called sports that
are judged primarily on their artistic merits, like figure skating.

Tony Cooper

2021-12-06 21:10:10 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 08:12:25 -0500

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:21:29 +0100, Silvano

On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 16:31:50 -0500

[]
This rule does *not* apply in snooker!

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. How often do *snooker*
players *kick* a ball?

If the ball rattles back out of the pocket, that's not a score.

It wasn't really apparant; it might have been abherent.

Post by Tony Cooper
A quick Google shows that Steve Dawson is the Chief Executive Officer
of the World Snooker organization.

Sadly for my apparent clever Obscure Reference; I did not know this.

Wow! I often see accidental puns, but this may be the first time I have seen
a quite clever, accidental obscure reference.

Just wait. Ken may decide later to take credit for the clever
reference.
He was just trying to snooker us by his disclaimer.
obAue: Is "snooker us" used to mean "fool us" in the UK or other
parts of the world where snooker is actually known as a sport?

M-W provides only the AmE definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snooker

to make a dupe of: hoodwink

--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

Tony Cooper

2021-12-06 22:26:59 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
Which begs the question "Is snooker a sport?"

Snooker can be called either a game or a sport, in my view. I think that those
who insist on one or the other are a little too tightly strung (that's from tennis).
But you should look up "begging the question". It does not mean raising the
question. It is a logically faulty approach to argument or debate in which the
debater assumes his conclusion is correct without proving it.
I suppose there's no great harm in using it to mean "raising the question" -- you
won't be the first to do so -- except that it may cause pedantic sorts to look down
their noses at you.

I was a bit too subtle. The question invites each person who replies
to provide their conclusion without the ability to prove that their
conclusion is the correct one.

Can you prove that your reply is the correct one?

--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

Madhu

2021-12-09 04:29:54 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Which begs the question "Is snooker a sport?"

Snooker can be called either a game or a sport, in my view. I think
that those who insist on one or the other are a little too tightly
strung (that's from tennis).
But you should look up "begging the question". It does not mean
raising the question. It is a logically faulty approach to argument or
debate in which the debater assumes his conclusion is correct without
proving it.
I suppose there's no great harm in using it to mean "raising the
question" -- you won't be the first to do so -- except that it may
cause pedantic sorts to look down their noses at you.

I was a bit too subtle.

Indeed. Many usages of "beg the question" which are dismissed as being
incorrect should raise the question whether they are indeed incorrect or
if they mask a fallacy which is overlooked.

Post by Tony Cooper
The question invites each person who replies to provide their
conclusion without the ability to prove that their conclusion is the
correct one.
Can you prove that your reply is the correct one?

Peter Moylan

2021-12-07 02:25:51 UTC

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:50:19 -0800 (PST), lar3ryca