Gosh, I hate to admit that I am the one who voted 'no' to # 3 and 'yes' to # 4, but, let's face it... most men are better at basketball than women are. If one man had been a star in college that would be a lot different from a woman being a star. He is definitely a ringer, though I see that so far no one agrees with me.

I see a "ringer" as being a participant who isn't who he/she is claimed to be. In neither of these cases has a claim been made so there is no ringer. If the scenario had been a challenge that was specifically phrased with "and he, no professionals allowed, OK?" then you could claim a ringer was being substituted.

As for steraiod use (in the other thread) that's just cheating - again no ringer involved.

If you expand the definition of ringer to include all four secenarios (I only included one on the other thread and neither here) then do you expand it to include all forms of cheating?

Am I ringer if I put a stone in my opponents shoe? Am I a ringer if put sleeping tablets in his water bottle?

Of course not. Ringer isn't just a synonym for cheat. It's someone pretending to be someone or something that they are not.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

But, Bob, that male basketball star purposely didn't tell the women about his being a basketball star, and, let's face it, a male basketball star in a women's game will mean the game (sorry women!). The woman star probably won't make that much difference anyway. I stand by my vote of the man, not the woman, being the ringer. I agree with you about the use of steroids. That's just plain cheating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
But, Bob, that male basketball star _purposely_ didn't tell the women about his being a basketball star,

---

Morally wrong? Certainly.
Cheating? Most likely.
A ringer? Not by any definition of the word that I'd use. Now if they'd taken out one of their players and introduced a pro player from the league or even if they had taken out one of their players and introduced a particularly good player from another school in his place that would be a ringer.

(Incidentally I'd say with certainty that whatever is true for case for logically has to be true for case three. Sauce for the goose etc.)