OT: Stern on Jim Rome

[Anklebreaker702]

i like what stern said to unprofessional jim rome.

its fun for fans to joke around about it and its fine if some fans to actually take it seriously, but there is ZERO reason for someone in the media to ask stern if the lottery is actually rigged. ask him how he feels about fans thinking its rigged, but don't be foolish enough to ask him, multiple times, about actually rigging the lottery.

F Stern. I'm not a big Rome fan but Stern is a pompous prick! Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I would have told him yeah but if you were in my face I'd be beating your ass right now you old dirty bastard. Then at the end he says I have to call somebody important like Stephen A. Smith. He's up next.

The one thing I would have said if I was Rome was why don't you just show the balls bouncing live like you use to & it would end all the speculation.

[dockingsched]

the beating your wife question is a popular example of a loaded question, he's not actually accusing rome of beating his wife.

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

as far showing the bouncing balls. they do it in front of every single lottery team, independent auditors, and media members as well.

[snaquille oatmeal]

wojo and ding's articles covered the perception, which is what i said is a fair question to ask. they didn't actually question whether the lottery was fixed.

wojo framed it within the context of the previous PR mishaps including the cp3 to lakers trade. ding didn't really say much just that "let the conspiracies start!" type of thing.

dock, the reason why people like Wojo and Ding only write about what fans speculate is because there is no proof, but they know the speculation has merit, they just can't prove it. that's why they wrote about it, that's why they don't try to debunk it themselves. basically they are saying the speculation is real but there is no proof so we won't go beyond that. with that said there is nothing wrong with asking Stern if it is fixed. I guarantee you that Wojo and Ding would ask him if they had their chance, but they didn't Rome had the chance and he did.

[dockingsched]

i 100% agree with everything you wrote except for the part where woj/ding would ask stern themselves. i don't think they would. i think they would ask about how stern feels about the perception / the fan reaction, may be even about any thoughts about changing the process to make it more public. i actually would lose a lot of respect for ding/woj if they asked stern if it was fixed. its not a question based on any facts, like u said, they'd ask about the speculation but there's no reason to go beyond that.

[iamworthy]

the beating your wife question is a popular example of a loaded question, he's not actually accusing rome of beating his wife.

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

as far showing the bouncing balls. they do it in front of every single lottery team, independent auditors, and media members as well.

+1

[Anklebreaker702]

the beating your wife question is a popular example of a loaded question, he's not actually accusing rome of beating his wife.

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

as far showing the bouncing balls. they do it in front of every single lottery team, independent auditors, and media members as well.

Not true at all. He said are you STILL beating your wife. That's means I know you've done it but have you stopped. Secondly about the bouncing balls. That's still not the public. That's why conspiracy theories pop up. Not saying it is or isn't I'm just saying that's how you diffuse the situation.

[iamworthy]

Hopefully this helps.

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.

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

[milesfides]

"Was the fix in for the lottery" is not a loaded question, because it doesn't have a false presupposition.

If Rome had asked, "Have you stopped fixing the lottery?" or "Have you continued to fix the lottery?" then yes, Rome would be guilty of a loaded question. But Rome simply asked if Stern had fixed the lottery. That's not a loaded question.

And David Stern, as a lawyer, should have known that. He probably did, which is why he resorted to red herring and straw man tactics. Either way, his response was inappropriate to his profession, his position, and the situation.

[Kilroy]

As the man in charge of the draft lottery, if you are asked if the lottery is fixed once, say "No, of course not" and that answer is accepted, then it's not a loaded question...

If however, your answer is not accepted repeatedly and that question is still being asked, then the implication is that the interviewer knows the lottery is in fact fixed and is demanding the "truth." The context of the question and it's repeatedly being asked, implies a false presupposition.

In that context, the question is in fact, very loaded... And David Stern, being a very good lawyer, did recognize it for what it was.

Any lawyer knows if a question is asked repeatedly of a witness in front of a jury, the jury is likely to read that as proof the witness is lying. That's why opposing lawyers and judges don't allow that sort of thing...

[milesfides]

I'm sorry, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[Kilroy]

I'm sorry, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I can live with that...

[Anklebreaker702]

"Was the fix in for the lottery" is not a loaded question, because it doesn't have a false presupposition.

If Rome had asked, "Have you stopped fixing the lottery?" or "Have you continued to fix the lottery?" then yes, Rome would be guilty of a loaded question. But Rome simply asked if Stern had fixed the lottery. That's not a loaded question.

And David Stern, as a lawyer, should have known that. He probably did, which is why he resorted to red herring and straw man tactics. Either way, his response was inappropriate to his profession, his position, and the situation.

It was as simple as that to me as well miles