I know you're not very smart so let me try to explain my whole point for you. I'll try to keep it simple
Thanks Tesla, I'll try and keep up.
Saying he had this many points vs a certain team is meaningless. I used the Providence example to try to show that, admittedly I was wrong.
Let me see if I'm following. In order to demonstrate that how many points Caraher had versus a certain team is meaningless, you discussed in excruciating detail how many points Caraher got versus Providence and how and where and when he got them. And to buttress your argument about the meaninglessness of how he did against a Providence you made up an imaginary friend with whom you allegedly discussed at some length how he did versus Providence, and everything you and your imaginary friend allegedly discussed about how he did versus Providence, which is meaningless, was a completely made up lie.
I detect a flaw in your argument. Because if you're trying to demonstrate that something is meaningless, the most important thing to do is to avoid assigning meaning to it. Like, if I said that Caraher scored 19 points against Providence because of the weather, and you said no the game was indoors so there's no way the weather had any effect on how he did, there'd be no need for you to make up an imaginary friend with whom you texted back and forth about the relatively humidity and the wind chill factor on game day. Because those things would be meaningless and by discussing them at all you're giving them meaning. Geddit dummy? If how Caraher did against PU is meaningless in terms of his prospects at SJU then how he got those points is immaterial. So besides being a completely false and made up lie, how Caraher did versus Providence - whether good or bad - is completely irrelevant to the argument you're attempting.
So to recap: you made up an irrelevant lie that tacitly admitted the truth of your opponents argument. You really completely out-stupided yourself. Kudos.