David Stern and Jim Rome go at each other big time!

[Admin]

Might have to listen to an ad first but give it 15 seconds or so to start up

[AHawks89]

Ah, you beat me to it. I was going say "Folks this our NBA commissioner." I honestly think the lottery is fixed, and I do believe in the conspiracy of the officiating. David Stern is dirty and will always be.

Edited June 14, 2012 by AHawks89

[Admin]

Ah, you beat me to it. I was going say "Folks this our NBA commissioner." I honestly think the lottery is fixed, and I do believe in the conspiracy of the officiating. David Stern is dirty and will always be.

And how freaking immature can you be? I mean seriously, I expect sensationalism from a guy like Rome but to hear our commissioner act like an 13 year old is just disgusting.

[LucastheThird]

Do you still beat your wife?That's our NBA Commissioner David Stern. Jim Rome is a prick who gets on my nerves at times, but he asked a legitimate question there and got a shot below the belt for it. Bad commissioner bad

[Supporter]

I liked the part where he said that Stephen A. Smith was "important"....lol in what sense is S.A.S. ever important?!?!?!?

[AHawks89]

And how freaking immature can you be? I mean seriously, I expect sensationalism from a guy like Rome but to hear our commissioner act like an 13 year old is just disgusting.

I know right. Rome has always had that mentality, Stern knows this and should had been prepared. I don't like Rome that much either, but on this interview he asked a fair question and did nothing wrong. This is all the more proof that I believe the NBA if fixed. Rome: "No, flopping is a cheap trick" LLOL!

[Devon]

Stern is a bastard... in other breaking news "Water is wet", "Grass is Green" and "Fire...Burn"Move along... nothing to see here.

[MaceCase]

I liked it. Honestly, Stern has been getting shit since '85 that he's been rigging this shit and that shit over there that I don't mind him just saying he's tired of doing the congenial PC smile and diatribe and just letting loose on a media member. Personally I'm tired of it so I can't imagine how he feels, that and the media (of which Rome is a member of) has been most complicit in perpetrating all of the things that they then want to turn around and call conspiracy over. Had he said this to a fan I'd call him classless but since it's Rome? f*** em.

[lethalweapon3]

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Everybody knows that's an unfair question.

After all... who in their right mind would marry Jim Rome?

~lw3

[AHF]

Do you still beat your wife?

That is the classic example of a question that assumes facts not in evidence and is unfair because there is no way to answer it. I don't mind Stern using that one. Some of the other behavior is pretty immature on his part. Rome is a douche and doesn't "report" much of any real value - he is someone who does try to stir the bucket just to get attention but that is a good reason to not go on his show anymore. A few lines to shoot him down and then more gracefully move on would have been plenty in my book. That was excessive and makes Stern look bad.

[Admin]

That is the classic example of a question that assumes facts not in evidence and is unfair because there is no way to answer it. I don't mind Stern using that one. Some of the other behavior is pretty immature on his part. Rome is a douche and doesn't "report" much of any real value - he is someone who does try to stir the bucket just to get attention but that is a good reason to not go on his show anymore. A few lines to shoot him down and then more gracefully move on would have been plenty in my book. That was excessive and makes Stern look bad.

I agree with the part about the example that he used being ok, although it was a little lowbrow for what I'd expect from the commissioner. Hell he could have said do you still wear panties under your clothes or some other ridiculous impossible to answer question without invoking spousal abuse.

[lethalweapon3]

I liked the part where he said that Stephen A. Smith was "important"....lol in what sense is S.A.S. ever important?!?!?!?

Rome wasn't really even p*ssed until Stern dropped that on him. As Jim knows, you're not really all that important until Jay Pharaoh mimicks you on a Saturday Night."MAWRIO CHAWMERS?!?!?!?"~lw3

[Admin]

Rome wasn't really even p*ssed until Stern dropped that on him. As Jim knows, you're not really all that important until Jay Pharaoh mimicks you on a Saturday Night."MAWRIO CHAWMERS?!?!?!?"~lw3

That SNL bit cracks me up! I've probably watched it a dozen times this week already LOL. "Mario Chalmers should not have arms to shoot the basketball in the 4th quarter. He should be dismembered and have attachments for arms like Edward Scissorhands. And that's hard for me because he's the father of my child, little Mario A. Chalmers, Jr..."

[Bahamut]

Objection: argumentative (for all the Esq.'s out there).A classless commissioner for what is often a classless league, but I still hate him less than Gary Bettman, the NHL comissioner.

[Plainview1981]

I liked the part where he said that Stephen A. Smith was "important"....lol in what sense is S.A.S. ever important?!?!?!?

You do realize that was Stern taking a shot at Rome don't you? That was awesome. I doubt that Stern actually believes SAS has anything legit to add.I thought Stern made good points in regards to the draft and how people would have also said it was fixed if Charlotte or NJ got the pick. So, I have to back Stern on this one.

[AHF]

I agree with the part about the example that he used being ok, although it was a little lowbrow for what I'd expect from the commissioner. Hell he could have said do you still wear panties under your clothes or some other ridiculous impossible to answer question without invoking spousal abuse.

Asking about his panties though wouldn't have resonated because the "when did you stop beating your wife" question is more than a question - it is an archetype.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption, e.g., a presumption of guilt.^[1]

Aside from being a logical fallacy, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.^[2]The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.^[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.^[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Exposition:

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

[*]"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."

[*]"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:

[*]"Have you ever beaten your wife?"

[*]"If so, are you still doing so?"

In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.

[ftown]

Rome wishes he could move up to the lowest common denominator lolhe is the Geraldo Rivera of sports hahaGo Hawks!

[Diesel]

I liked it. Honestly, Stern has been getting shit since '85 that he's been rigging this shit and that shit over there that I don't mind him just saying he's tired of doing the congenial PC smile and diatribe and just letting loose on a media member. Personally I'm tired of it so I can't imagine how he feels, that and the media (of which Rome is a member of) has been most complicit in perpetrating all of the things that they then want to turn around and call conspiracy over. Had he said this to a fan I'd call him classless but since it's Rome? f*** em.

Him going on the offensive in the way that he did (character assassination) just says that "yeah, I rigged it." What you heard from Stern was a bully who gets his way through intimidation and manipulation. HIs comment wasn't meant to be in any way funny, it was an attack. Love or Hate Rome, when you ask a legitimate question and get an answer like that, the person answering is trying to divert attention and at the same time humiliate the reporter. I applaud Rome for keeping his composure because I'm sure in studio, Stern would not have dared answered in that way.

[Eddielives]

While Stern definitely put his maturity aside and looked like a child getting into it with Rome like that, I understand how tired and frustrating it must be for him to have to deal with ridiculous notions of the dogma of the conspiracy theorist. Now Rome wasn't asking the question in such a way that made himself out to be believing the conspiracy, but asking the question in a way like how do you respond to the assertions that the lottery is fixed may have been less confrontational. Make no mistake about it, conspiracy theorism is a dogma to many people, some of who are frequent posters on this board. Picking apart their mental process and seeing their logicallly fallacious dogma is very apparent when you aren't emotionally invested in believing the outcome from the beginning, such as the lottery is fixed, 911 was an inside job, etc. Now some will say Eddie, what about the big boxing fight the other night? Was that not a fixed job? Well of course it was. But here's the difference. There is a mountain of evidence, incontrovertible evidence that leads clearly to a solid and reliable conclusion, beyond a certainty of doubt. In the case of the lottery being fixed, it's all dogma.

[MaceCase]

Him going on the offensive in the way that he did (character assassination) just says that "yeah, I rigged it." What you heard from Stern was a bully who gets his way through intimidation and manipulation. HIs comment wasn't meant to be in any way funny, it was an attack. Love or Hate Rome, when you ask a legitimate question and get an answer like that, the person answering is trying to divert attention and at the same time humiliate the reporter. I applaud Rome for keeping his composure because I'm sure in studio, Stern would not have dared answered in that way.

He did give him a legitimate answer that no matter who of the most likely teams that would have won the lottery that Rome (the media) would of still run off with whichever storyline that it was rigged. He even mentioned that media representatives are present during the selection and that the process is independently audited by Earnst & Young yet he has to call into an interview and still hear that sensationalist question from that hack so he responded with a sensationalist common phrase. I wasn't aware that Rome was actually a convicted or alleged wife beater.....if he was then two points for the commissioner and minus 10 for anyone who didn't get it. Eddie is right, certain fans want to hear stories about the boogie man and how the government is hiding his existence and these media types are all more than happy to feed into it for their OWN benefit but the beauty of it is that if they don't ask "legitimate" questions it's only further proof that there IS a conspiracy!