Sacramento pushing Anaheim ballot measure trying to force team to spend another year
- Thread starter Larry David
- Start date
No one said it did. I guess i should have been more clear that I was referring to The Kings and Sacramento. A winning team WILL be successful here. History has proven that. Obviously there are teams like Atlanta and Memphis that struggle with attendance even when they're winning. That wouldn't happen in Sacramento, though. You put a good team on the floor here, it WILL pay off.
1. They're allowed to leave, it's their business.
2. I agree that we should fight for them to stay, but they're not exactly walking out on us. We've known for years that if no arena was built, then the possibility would be very high that they would leave.
3. Part of the problem IS the city. And while Johnson was not part of it in the past does not exclude us from still placing some blame on the city.
4. So far, I have quoted every single post of yours chronologically. So far, you don't have many of these "facts" you claim to have or have stated. Besides, your notion of time is very interesting. (note: ad hominem fallacy)
5. True, funding is a major problem. However, defeatist attitude=/= realizing that after a decade and more of needing an arena, that leaving would allow them to play in a better arena (note: I am not saying Honda Arena is better, but I am saying that the idea of leaving to go someplace where a better arena is offered, be that kentucky, anaheim, wherever, is a valid solution to the maloofs)
6. Highjacking a thread is when you post to thread, deliberately trying to change the discussion of the OP's intent. Besides, there are other threads where i have seen almost the same ideas repeated again and again. (note: straw man fallacy)
7. The problem lies in the fact that you didn't mention Sacramento, which comes across as only having a certain agenda that you want to get across. (note: faulty causality fallacy)
8. Unfortunately, your logic here is flawed as well. Your logic is: A bad team DOES NOT turn up profit. A good team will have the profits take care of themselves (whether that means breaking even or turning up a profit only you know, as you were vague here). However, there are problems in your logic because: A. Bad teams can and sometimes do turn up profit. and B. Good teams sometimes don't turn up a profit due to very high payroll, poor ticket sales, bad TV deal, poor marketing etc. (note: non sequitur fallacy)
9. Not much to say here. (note: ad hominem, straw man, faulty causality)
10. However, it still is the same City (Sacramento, that is) that has "failed (offended) in the past."
11. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think the Golden Rule as well would be a good code/rule to follow on forums.
12. This is where things run afoul. You say that you've "bashed Sacramento as well." Since I have quoted everything you've said chronologically, you have yet to bash Sacramento (in this case, the term bash is meant as criticizing or to perceive negatively).
13. Again nothing to comment about here.
14. See Golden Rule
15. You may not perceive yourself as having an agenda, but your comment and the way you word your answers make it seem so. I would advise you not to call the Kettle black, because you just may be the Tea Pot.
16.You must explain, provide evidence, reason, etc. when you make a claim. You can't just state your argument (in this case the "red herring") and expect people to understand or agree with you. You may not have asked for the information, but Dave was responding to your comments and giving you a rebuttal. However, you immediately labeled him "junior" and moved on. Take counter-arguments and rebuttals seriously.
17. Using absolutes only makes you seem juvenile. Whether you care about that or not, just remember that some people won't take you or your argument seriously. Also, stating something like that last sentence of yours comes across as a poor sense of humor, and downright arrogant.
18. Nothing much here, you are just responding to another poster.
19. Nice question that was asked in a serious manner with great tone and good manners. More questions like these would greatly elevate you in the standing of your fellow posters.
20. Over the last few posts, you have successfully lowered fallacies (although not entirely) from your argument.
2. I agree that we should fight for them to stay, but they're not exactly walking out on us. We've known for years that if no arena was built, then the possibility would be very high that they would leave.
3. Part of the problem IS the city. And while Johnson was not part of it in the past does not exclude us from still placing some blame on the city.
4. So far, I have quoted every single post of yours chronologically. So far, you don't have many of these "facts" you claim to have or have stated. Besides, your notion of time is very interesting. (note: ad hominem fallacy)
5. True, funding is a major problem. However, defeatist attitude=/= realizing that after a decade and more of needing an arena, that leaving would allow them to play in a better arena (note: I am not saying Honda Arena is better, but I am saying that the idea of leaving to go someplace where a better arena is offered, be that kentucky, anaheim, wherever, is a valid solution to the maloofs)
6. Highjacking a thread is when you post to thread, deliberately trying to change the discussion of the OP's intent. Besides, there are other threads where i have seen almost the same ideas repeated again and again. (note: straw man fallacy)
7. The problem lies in the fact that you didn't mention Sacramento, which comes across as only having a certain agenda that you want to get across. (note: faulty causality fallacy)
8. Unfortunately, your logic here is flawed as well. Your logic is: A bad team DOES NOT turn up profit. A good team will have the profits take care of themselves (whether that means breaking even or turning up a profit only you know, as you were vague here). However, there are problems in your logic because: A. Bad teams can and sometimes do turn up profit. and B. Good teams sometimes don't turn up a profit due to very high payroll, poor ticket sales, bad TV deal, poor marketing etc. (note: non sequitur fallacy)
9. Not much to say here. (note: ad hominem, straw man, faulty causality)
10. However, it still is the same City (Sacramento, that is) that has "failed (offended) in the past."
11. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think the Golden Rule as well would be a good code/rule to follow on forums.
12. This is where things run afoul. You say that you've "bashed Sacramento as well." Since I have quoted everything you've said chronologically, you have yet to bash Sacramento (in this case, the term bash is meant as criticizing or to perceive negatively).
13. Again nothing to comment about here.
14. See Golden Rule
15. You may not perceive yourself as having an agenda, but your comment and the way you word your answers make it seem so. I would advise you not to call the Kettle black, because you just may be the Tea Pot.
16.You must explain, provide evidence, reason, etc. when you make a claim. You can't just state your argument (in this case the "red herring") and expect people to understand or agree with you. You may not have asked for the information, but Dave was responding to your comments and giving you a rebuttal. However, you immediately labeled him "junior" and moved on. Take counter-arguments and rebuttals seriously.
17. Using absolutes only makes you seem juvenile. Whether you care about that or not, just remember that some people won't take you or your argument seriously. Also, stating something like that last sentence of yours comes across as a poor sense of humor, and downright arrogant.
18. Nothing much here, you are just responding to another poster.
19. Nice question that was asked in a serious manner with great tone and good manners. More questions like these would greatly elevate you in the standing of your fellow posters.
20. Over the last few posts, you have successfully lowered fallacies (although not entirely) from your argument.
21. Look at my comment (#8). You have successfully contradicted yourself according to your own logic.
22. Only problem, though, is that very soon we will have to sign those on rookie contracts for more money. Can the Kings sign them and still operate successfully?
23. You may not have deflected any facts, but you have deflected a few posters that wanted a response from you in which you either brushed them aside or built a straw man to attack.
24. See, clarifying yourself makes it easier for everyone involved.
22. Only problem, though, is that very soon we will have to sign those on rookie contracts for more money. Can the Kings sign them and still operate successfully?
23. You may not have deflected any facts, but you have deflected a few posters that wanted a response from you in which you either brushed them aside or built a straw man to attack.
24. See, clarifying yourself makes it easier for everyone involved.
Wow. You must find me very interesting to bother replying to every singe thing I’ve said in this thread. I’m flattered.
No kidding?
They should have given a deadline. Hardly anything ever gets done without a deadline. That is part of why the Maloofs share blame here. They were never very proactive about getting an arena built.
Not sure what "ad hominem fallacy" you think you're referring to. But the statement you're responding to wasn't a claim that everything I had posted was a fact. It was a specific reference to things the Maloofs have done that are part of the problem.
It's never been a question of whether leaving would allow them to play in a better arena. If they're just now realizing that...they're stupid. The question is about how dedicated they are to working with the powers that be to get something done with an arena here. Their dedication to that in the past has been questionable and at present, non existent.
You have the strawman fallacy wrong there. An argument needs to be presented for it to even be possible for there to be a strawman fallacy. Stating opinions, which is what I did in my initial post, are wholly another matter. It's a fallacy because of how it "comes across" to YOU? ROTF! I’ve mentioned Sacramento many times. That you didn’t see me mention it here isn’t cause for assuming I must not place any blame on Sacramento.
Something cannot be non sequitur if it’s a mistake.
Yeah let’s just ignore the post I hade responded to and the role it played in the tone of my post.. That’s very convenient.
It’s the same name, but it isn’t the same situation, people, resources, ideas, etc.
Odd that you’d bring up the golden rule since the post you quoted was an example of me abiding by the golden rule.
So because I didn’t do it in this thread, means I didn’t do it anywhere else?
I’m not the person you need to be pointing out the golden rule to here. I’ve stated no argument without reasons and evidence nor have I not taken any counter argument seriously.
Basically I go tit for tat with folks. If they act like jerks (I’m talking about to me personally, not just in general), I’m a jerk back. That’s how I roll. I’m not a turn the other cheek kind of guy. None of that relates to the actual arguments, though.
The funny thing is, no absolutes were stated in what you quoted so I have no idea what in tarnation you think you’re talking about there.
As for the rest, I don’t give a rat’s patoot how I come across to folks. I’m not here to make buddies, get validation, have my humor appreciated, etc.
I’m just a Kings fan that’s really bummed out and pissed off about what’s going on and my posts reflect that. I’m trying to point out reasons why I think the Kings shouldn’t move but oddly, it seems most people here don’t want to hear that but instead, want to talk about what a great move it will be. That’s bound to cause some conflicts.
If you pay attention, you’ll notice that I always treat folks with good manners when they treat me with good manners. You know...golden rule. If folks are oblivious to that about me, then they probably aren’t the type of people whose opinions of me I’d care much about.
As a rule, I don’t engage in fallacious arguments. I make a conscious effort not to. That isn’t to say that I don’t get overly emotional at times and slip up here and there, though. That should hardly be a problem around here though, as there’s no shortage of straw on this board.
I haven’t contradicted anything. If you’d actually paid attention to the numerous posts you quoted, you’d see that I already conceded that I was wrong about bad teams not turning profits sometimes.
How should I know? Only time will answer that. You could ask the same thing about Anaheim, though.
As a rule I don’t deflect anything. I may not respond to every singe point in everyone’s post, but other than you, who does? I respond to what I feel is relevant and I can answer. If someone feels I’ve deliberately avoided something, all they have to do is bring it up.
No kidding?
They should have given a deadline. Hardly anything ever gets done without a deadline. That is part of why the Maloofs share blame here. They were never very proactive about getting an arena built.
Not sure what "ad hominem fallacy" you think you're referring to. But the statement you're responding to wasn't a claim that everything I had posted was a fact. It was a specific reference to things the Maloofs have done that are part of the problem.
It's never been a question of whether leaving would allow them to play in a better arena. If they're just now realizing that...they're stupid. The question is about how dedicated they are to working with the powers that be to get something done with an arena here. Their dedication to that in the past has been questionable and at present, non existent.
You have the strawman fallacy wrong there. An argument needs to be presented for it to even be possible for there to be a strawman fallacy. Stating opinions, which is what I did in my initial post, are wholly another matter. It's a fallacy because of how it "comes across" to YOU? ROTF! I’ve mentioned Sacramento many times. That you didn’t see me mention it here isn’t cause for assuming I must not place any blame on Sacramento.
Something cannot be non sequitur if it’s a mistake.
Yeah let’s just ignore the post I hade responded to and the role it played in the tone of my post.. That’s very convenient.
It’s the same name, but it isn’t the same situation, people, resources, ideas, etc.
Odd that you’d bring up the golden rule since the post you quoted was an example of me abiding by the golden rule.
So because I didn’t do it in this thread, means I didn’t do it anywhere else?
I’m not the person you need to be pointing out the golden rule to here. I’ve stated no argument without reasons and evidence nor have I not taken any counter argument seriously.
Basically I go tit for tat with folks. If they act like jerks (I’m talking about to me personally, not just in general), I’m a jerk back. That’s how I roll. I’m not a turn the other cheek kind of guy. None of that relates to the actual arguments, though.
The funny thing is, no absolutes were stated in what you quoted so I have no idea what in tarnation you think you’re talking about there.
As for the rest, I don’t give a rat’s patoot how I come across to folks. I’m not here to make buddies, get validation, have my humor appreciated, etc.
I’m just a Kings fan that’s really bummed out and pissed off about what’s going on and my posts reflect that. I’m trying to point out reasons why I think the Kings shouldn’t move but oddly, it seems most people here don’t want to hear that but instead, want to talk about what a great move it will be. That’s bound to cause some conflicts.
If you pay attention, you’ll notice that I always treat folks with good manners when they treat me with good manners. You know...golden rule. If folks are oblivious to that about me, then they probably aren’t the type of people whose opinions of me I’d care much about.
As a rule, I don’t engage in fallacious arguments. I make a conscious effort not to. That isn’t to say that I don’t get overly emotional at times and slip up here and there, though. That should hardly be a problem around here though, as there’s no shortage of straw on this board.
I haven’t contradicted anything. If you’d actually paid attention to the numerous posts you quoted, you’d see that I already conceded that I was wrong about bad teams not turning profits sometimes.
How should I know? Only time will answer that. You could ask the same thing about Anaheim, though.
As a rule I don’t deflect anything. I may not respond to every singe point in everyone’s post, but other than you, who does? I respond to what I feel is relevant and I can answer. If someone feels I’ve deliberately avoided something, all they have to do is bring it up.
Last edited:
Sacramento city sucks when it comes to helping out.. Not to mention we didn't have the right people in place for the last 10 or so years..
As for the people and the surrounding areas like Elk Grove, Roseville, Rocklin, El Dorado, Folsom, Davis, and many other areas have people that would give up their first born to have the Kings stay here, not to mention the fans who are willing to donate just to do the arena ourselves.
As for the people and the surrounding areas like Elk Grove, Roseville, Rocklin, El Dorado, Folsom, Davis, and many other areas have people that would give up their first born to have the Kings stay here, not to mention the fans who are willing to donate just to do the arena ourselves.