"Unanswered points"

[Cosmic]

I agree to disagree. I think we have accepted phrases over time that are technically inaccurate.

There's nothing inaccurate about 0-0 ties or tied at 0.

Yes there is, but I'm not going to argue about it any more because you're never going to figure it out. Agree to disagree.

There's more than one way to say the same thing. I'd rather announcers mix it up a little instead of saying "scoreless" every single time.

Just because there is more than one way to say something doesn't mean it's correct. "Should of" is a different way of saying "should've." It's not really correct though.

But zero is an imaginary number!

Yeah, that's exactly what I said too... Show me zero of something. Anything.

You don't have to see something for it to be a real number. By that logic, unless you can show me 1,345,567,894 of something, then that is an imaginary number.

Zero is not an imaginary number. The square root of negative 1 is an imaginary number.

But in theory, I could show you 1,345,567,894 dollar bills, ears of corn, jars of peanut butter. I could show you that amount. In theory and in real life, I can't show you zero of something. In sports, it has to be a positive number to "have" something, like points. When a team "has" 50 points, it can show me how they accumulated them. A team can't show a fan how it "has" zero points. There's nothing to show.

-----------

Too many people on this board HAVE to be right about this. I've said a few times I'll agree to disagree and move on. BUT NOPE, LET'S KEEP ON :censored:ING ARGUING AND BEING :censored:ING SNOOTY ABOUT IT. It's a shame that this thread hasn't been graveyarded when it's more pointless than other threads in the graveyard. I've never questioned why mods do anything...but this is seriously a thread that needs to die. It's not doing any good staying active.

Yes, you can show something when you have nothing... the number zero. I thought we totally settled this like 1200 years ago.

[Evil Doctor]

Yes, you can show something when you have nothing... the number zero. I thought we totally settled this like 1200 years ago.

It's a backlash for 9-11...

[tBBP]

"Should of" is a different way of saying "should've."

"0-0 tie," "tied at 0," and "scoreless tie" are all correct. No matter how bad you don't want them to be.

But in theory, I could show you 1,345,567,894 dollar bills, ears of corn, jars of peanut butter. I could show you that amount. In theory and in real life, I can't show you zero of something. In sports, it has to be a positive number to "have" something, like points. When a team "has" 50 points, it can show me how they accumulated them. A team can't show a fan how it "has" zero points. There's nothing to show.

And you can also show me that you have zero dollars in your hand, by opening your hand and there being zero dollars there. That means you have zero dollars in your hand. Didn't they teach you this stuff in elementary school?

A team has zero points by not scoring. Zero is a number, and it is a number of points a team can have. That is why they display "0" on the scoreboard, rather than a question mark or something of that ilk.

This oughtta settle this whole argument...

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence. Just because you don't have proof that something does exist, does not mean you have evidence that something doesn't exist. There's known knowns and there's known unknowns but there's also UNKNOWN unknowns...things we don't know that we don't know.

(Now I'll leave all y'all alone to figure that one out on your own.)

[sc49erfan15]

There's known knowns and there's known unknowns but there's also UNKNOWN unknowns...things we don't know that we don't know.

(Now I'll leave all y'all alone to figure that one out on your own.)

Like... Three Six Mafia?

[Epiphanic]

"Should of" is a different way of saying "should've."

"0-0 tie," "tied at 0," and "scoreless tie" are all correct. No matter how bad you don't want them to be.

But in theory, I could show you 1,345,567,894 dollar bills, ears of corn, jars of peanut butter. I could show you that amount. In theory and in real life, I can't show you zero of something. In sports, it has to be a positive number to "have" something, like points. When a team "has" 50 points, it can show me how they accumulated them. A team can't show a fan how it "has" zero points. There's nothing to show.

And you can also show me that you have zero dollars in your hand, by opening your hand and there being zero dollars there. That means you have zero dollars in your hand. Didn't they teach you this stuff in elementary school?

A team has zero points by not scoring. Zero is a number, and it is a number of points a team can have. That is why they display "0" on the scoreboard, rather than a question mark or something of that ilk.

This oughtta settle this whole argument...

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence. Just because you don't have proof that something does exist, does not mean you have evidence that something doesn't exist. There's known knowns and there's known unknowns but there's also UNKNOWN unknowns...things we don't know that we don't know.

(Now I'll leave all y'all alone to figure that one out on your own.)

[sc49erfan15]

How do we know that there's things that we don't know that we don't know?

[floydnimrod]

Since this has turned into this kind of thread.....

When people say lead changes, do ties count as a lead change? While the lead hasn't changed from team to team, the team that was leading is no longer leading. I often notice that there are more ties than lead changes anyway.

[OnWis97]

So a few years ago, were the Detroit Lions 0-16?

I guess not. I guess there were winless, but they did not have "zero" wins. So they were actually not "0-16" but " -16". Or would we have to say "they had 16 losses in 16 games"?

Silly. I'll use "zero" and "oh" for scores.

[sc49erfan15]

Since this has turned into this kind of thread.....

When people say lead changes, do ties count as a lead change? While the lead hasn't changed from team to team, the team that was leading is no longer leading. I often notice that there are more ties than lead changes anyway.

I see your semantic argument, as in the lead is changing from Team A to no one. However, I'd still go with "lead changes" as changing from Team A to Team B.

[-kj]

Since this has turned into this kind of thread.....

When people say lead changes, do ties count as a lead change? While the lead hasn't changed from team to team, the team that was leading is no longer leading. I often notice that there are more ties than lead changes anyway.

I see your semantic argument, as in the lead is changing from Team A to no one. However, I'd still go with "lead changes" as changing from Team A to Team B.

While watching roller derby, you drink on a lead change and you drink on a tie. Of course, on a tie, we count the next score as being a lead change.

Then again, we just like to drink.

[tBBP]

How do we know that there's things that we don't know that we don't know?

That's why they're UNKNOWN unknowns, Shane...you don't know that you don't know them.

Knowhutimsayin?

[sc49erfan15]

How do we know that there's things that we don't know that we don't know?

That's why they're UNKNOWN unknowns, Shane...you don't know that you don't know them.

Knowhutimsayin?

How do we know that?

[sc49erfan15]

If Team A and Team B are tied, who's in the lead? Both? Neither? Or is there no leader?

[tBBP]

^ That there is a known unknown...you know that you don't know it.