Jim Rome and Stern get into heated discussion

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by JoeyJoJo

Bam! Godwin's Law.

That's great, but that doesn't mean it's not just in some cases.

Any time I see someone, on the internet or elsewhere, who doesn't even want a question asked, that's who I think of.

But that's not the only person I think of. You could easily substitute say "those who were outraged that someone dare ask if the world was round" or thousands of other idiots who hate questions.

[Hoodey]

Patchwork, you're a do not insult other posters. You think Lamarcus Aldridge is going to influence Finals series more so than Andrew Bynum, who already has two rings.

When you go around personally attacking people with troll labels, try to make sure it isn't because they left a long post full of actual arguments that you just stopped replying to.

Hey, still waiting for the "data" you gave me. Stooge.

[RollWithEm]

I love questions. I'm in favor of questioning everything. It is my opinion that the NBA draft lottery, in its current incarnation, is not fixed.

[girllovesthegame]

Originally Posted by JoeyJoJo

It's ridiculous to actually think the lottery is fixed. Just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't make it reasonable. A lot of people believe in Big Foot or [insert any number of silly things].

And even if it was fixed, would he admit it? The question is pointless.

A good question would be if he was concerned about the perception of a conflict of interest. That would be something that could have an interesting answer.

That would've been a better question. And then what would he have said though? Was he supposed to change the rules not allowing the Hornets to have a chance just like every other team just because the league owned the team or because the team was just sold to a new owner?

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by RollWithEm

I love questions. I'm in favor of questioning everything. It is my opinion that the NBA draft lottery, in its current incarnation, is not fixed.

My line of responses has been in regard to posts like Patchwork saying that Stern shouldn't "have to entertain such ridiculous notions" in post 5 of this thread.

Do I need to find more?

And I'd put thinking it was okay to go to a place like asking a guy if he still beats his wife into the realm of "outrage that the question was asked." Or you can substitute any non-tolerant word you want for outrage.

[RollWithEm]

Rome: Are you concerned about the perception of a conflict of interest with a league owned team, the Hornets, winning the NBA draft lottery.

Stern: No. We take more than adequate precautions to ensure transparency and integrity in the lottery process.

[Sir Patchwork]

Originally Posted by Hoodey

Patchwork, you're a nimrod. You think Lamarcus Aldridge is going to influence Finals series more so than Andrew Bynum, who already has two rings.

When you go around personally attacking people with troll labels, try to make sure it isn't because they left a long post full of actual arguments that you just stopped replying to.

Hey, still waiting for the "data" you gave me. Stooge.

My problem with you is not that you aren't intelligent, it's that you're intellectually dishonest. I don't believe you're interested in the truth as much as you are being a contrarian. In that way, it's not even worth the discourse.

[RollWithEm]

Is this an argument about the plausibility of the lottery being fixed or about Stern's choice of words?

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by girllovesthegame

That would've been a better question. And then what would he have said though? Was he supposed to change the rules not allowing the Hornets to have a chance just like every other team just because the league owned the team or because the team was just sold to a new owner?

Here's where I think the questions come from.

1993 - Orlando wins with a 1.52% chance
2008 - Chicago wins with a 1.7% chance

The Magic were a 1 in 66 shot. Shouldn't it take a while for a 1 in 66 occurrence to happen? And yet, only 15 years later, the Bulls hit a 1 in 59 shot.

I'm a Bulls fan. Don't you think I'd ignore this if it was a ridiculous notion?

You combine this with New Orleans getting a top pick on their way to new owners, the Supersonics getting a top pick on their way to Oklahoma City (at least in flux), the Duncan pick and the Ewing debacle and the question gets legs.

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by Sir Patchwork

My problem with you is not that you aren't intelligent, it's that you're intellectually dishonest. I don't believe you're interested in the truth as much as you are being a contrarian. In that way, it's not even worth the discourse.

But you're just giving me a worthless opinion. I also don't think you are just too unintelligent to give me a real argument.

You can't just claim I'm intellectually dishonest. Tell me why. Prove it. Give me a well-reasoned argument. I reason out my arguments to you (see Bynum argument, Bulls forum).

If you're not willing to do this, your unbridled opinion is utterly worthless.

[JoeyJoJo]

Hoodey, the question has been asked and answered countless times. You're basically arguing for all of these different parties to take part in a felony for minimal reward.

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by RollWithEm

Is this an argument about the plausibility of the lottery being fixed or about Stern's choice of words?

About both.

I think it's plausible and the question should be asked. I think your notion AND his notion that it's professional or acceptable to answer that question with the question he asked is terrible.

It says "I'm above the question, and I don't need to be burdened by it."

But you're trying to move the framework of the argument. You said you like questioning everything. I was providing you of one of myriad examples of people in this thread who do not feel the same way. Those are the people I was directing my general comments about not wanting the question asked at.

[girllovesthegame]

Originally Posted by Hoodey

Here's where I think the questions come from.

1993 - Orlando wins with a 1.52% chance
2008 - Chicago wins with a 1.7% chance

The Magic were a 1 in 66 shot. Shouldn't it take a while for a 1 in 66 occurrence to happen? And yet, only 15 years later, the Bulls hit a 1 in 59 shot.

I'm a Bulls fan. Don't you think I'd ignore this if it was a ridiculous notion?

You combine this with New Orleans getting a top pick on their way to new owners, the Supersonics getting a top pick on their way to Oklahoma City (at least in flux), the Duncan pick and the Ewing debacle and the question gets legs.

And New Orleans had a higher percentage chance of winning than both Orlando and Chicago did yet I don't remember the media going crazy over it being 'fixed' then. Or if they did go crazy they sure didn't go as crazy as they're going now. How many times was Stern asked about it being fixed on radio shows when Chicago won it in 2008?

[Hoodey]

Originally Posted by JoeyJoJo

Hoodey, the question has been asked and answered countless times. You're basically arguing for all of these different parties to take part in a felony for minimal reward.

And it should be fine for the question to continue to be asked.

The rich and privileged in this country are the kind of nouveau riche wannabe royal class who would think that they can say "hey, you asked it once. Your asking time is over."

We can ask it and Rome can ask it as long as we/he want(s).

[girllovesthegame]

Thing is, who thinks Stern would actually say 'yes, it was fixed'? They know he's not going to say yes but they put it out there to keep the conspiracies and suspicions going. Therein comes "do you still beat your wife?" Rome asked a loaded question and Stern shot one back at him. Good for him.