I know the foul you're talking about. Gm7 is in my tape library for sure. I'd hardly call that a clothesline. Shaq was standing straigth, Smith flew into him. I would've given the call agaisnt Shaq since his arms weren't completely vertical, but the Blazers were done by that point. Nader joined the fray when a group of Kings season ticket holders contacted him to review the situation. He didn't do that on his own volition. Besides, Nader means piss to me as someone who took votes away from Gore the last go-round. If you look at the totality of fouls in Gm6, they aren't that bad. Seriously. And it's only the 4th Qtr we're talking about. There were some blatantly bad calls agaisnt Sac, sure, but many of those were fouls right at rim level that stopped Lakers' from dunking or laying it in (mostly to blame for LA getting free throws on such fouls). Outside observers rarely recognize that the Kings fans were whining about the volume of free throws rather than the bad calls. Their logic was that there must be something wrong if you get outshot 26-9 in the 4th Qtr. Not so. If it's a foul, you have to call a foul. There's no lwaw written that two teams have to shoot the same number of free throws in order for the game to be fair. Even then, no one seemed to give a rat's that the Kings, previous to that fateful 4th Qtr in Gm6, had shot 37 more free throws than LA. Where was the outrage at that? More talented doesn't necessarily = better team. The '84 Sixers were more talented than the Nets, but the Nets took them out in the 1st Round. I think I was going for something like "the Kings are real beatches".
Ok, by now I'm pretty damn sure I've made my arguments known, and I don't really feel like repeating myself even more (and I'm sure no one wants to read it either), so I'm not going to respond to your whole post, BERSERKER. I could, but it would merely be repetition. However, I must point out a point at which I think you are confused at exactly what you yourself said. I quote: This was after I stated my opinion that the Lakers were not the best team that year. Notice your language: you say that my comment was unfounded, i.e. my argument has no kind of basis in fact or evidence at all, and therefore that it cannot even be logically argued that the Lakers were not the best team. With that statement you claim that the Lakers were the best team, and that is a fact, period. All opposing arguments are simply wrong. That is ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it is. I think you just didn't realize what you yourself were saying. I was not responding to your personal opinion that the Lakers were better, I was responding to your claim that no argument for any other team could even be made on the matter through your use of the word "unfounded." So let's look at my comment and your response again: If you read my post carefully, you can see that all I was saying was that you yourself had admitted that the Kings having more overall talent was a valid assertion, which therefore can be used as a foundation for a valid argument. Therefore, it is quite literally impossible that my original comment was "unfounded." I agree that more talented doesn't necessarily = better team. I never said anything that should have suggested otherwise. So in future, please use words you're sure you know the exact meaning of, and we can avoid these misunderstandings. Class dismissed.
If you read my post carefully, you can see that all I was saying was that you yourself had admitted that the Kings having more overall talent was a valid assertion, which therefore can be used as a foundation for a valid argument. Therefore, it is quite literally impossible that my original comment was "unfounded." I agree that more talented doesn't necessarily = better team. I never said anything that should have suggested otherwise. So in future, please use words you're sure you know the exact meaning of, and we can avoid these misunderstandings. Class dismissed. [/QUOTE] You went very long-winded just to note that you had some kind of basis for claiming that the Kings might very well have been the "best" team in that series. My contention is that the Lakers were the best team that year despite the Kings having more overall talent. I happen to disagree with your belief that the Kings' talent is a viable foundation for claiming that they were the best team in that series -- because they weren't. They proved they weren't with their ineptitude in closing games out, their overall fright in clutch situations (save for Bibby), and their inability to hold their home court. Your original point about the Lakers not being the best team was unfounded because in this particular case the Kings' superior talent didn't make them the better team.
You're really not understanding me here. I think the Kings were a better team, you think the Lakers were a better team. And I don't care, because that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Now you say that you disagree that the Kings' talent is a viable foundation for my argument. Once again, please try to get your definitions straight: "viable" basically means "capable of being done with the means at hand." In this case, a viable argument on my part against you would mean an argument sufficient to prove to you that my opinion is correct. I do not have a viable argument here. However, that's not what I said! I said valid, remember? "Valid" in the context of logic means "containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived." If you took Logic 001 in college, you'd be familiar with basic argument structure: we both agree with my premise, that the Kings had more overall talent. Now, completely removed from Lakers/Kings, or any teams in any sport for that matter, more talent removed from any other characteristics would logically mean a better team. I used this premise to come to my own conclusion that the Kings were the better team. You considered other premises which I did not necessarily consider to come to a different conclusion. And that's fine. However, while my argument (which has only one premise and is separate from your argument, which apparently has many more premises which you have not yet disclosed) is not viable to you, it is most certainly valid. To put it more simply: my argument had a foundation which we both agreed on, that the Kings had more overall talent. You disagree with what I conclude from an agreed upon premise. Fine. But you disagreeing with what I concluded has nothing to do with my foundation, i.e. premise, or the validity of my argument (although it has plenty to do with the viability, which I never once mentioned before this post). To put it yet more simply: wrong conclusion does not necessarily equal unfounded/invalid (which is the case here for you), and an argument can be valid without being viable (which is also the case here for you). Okay, let's make sure we're clear here: I'm done caring that you think the Lakers were a better team and that you think that championship was legit. What I do still care about is you putting words into my mouth (viable) when I was simply trying to correct a misunderstanding. That pisses me off. Don't do it again, alright? Because you know what that tells me? One or more of these four things (but not likely or necessarily all): 1. You were so quick to reply just so you could "win" an argument that you did not even read my post carefully enough to understand it correctly. That is a disrespect to me. 2. You knowingly switched "viable" for "valid" to make it easier for you to maliciously attack me when I was only trying to correct a misunderstanding. 3. You are ignorant. 4. You believe I am ignorant. There is not one item up there that I appreciate. So in future, please use words you know the definitions to, and don't put words in other people's mouths. Are we done, or would you like to sling more petty insults at me (like your above post) to prove what a big man you are and how strong your points are?
The problem is, Drexlerfan22, that you used the Kings' superior individual talent as a viable foundation for the claim that they were better than the Lakers in that series. Your supposedly viable argument is unfounded because the Lakers ended up winning the series. Your 4 premises at the bottom of your retort are also unfounded. I don't appreciate you parsing words in a feeble attempt to avoid discussing how the Kings didn't lose that series because of the refs.
"Viable foundation?" "Your supposedly viable argument?" Wow, YOU JUST PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT YOU DO NOT READ MY POSTS. THEREFORE, WHY WOULD I BOTHER DISCUSSING ANYTHING WITH SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT LISTEN TO MY POINTS? I never ever ever said my argument was "viable," I said it was VALID. That is a FACT. First of all, they are not premises, they are conclusions. Second, you just proved #1. Attempting to avoid discussing it? Yes, because I have made all my positions known in my above posts already. Were I to discuss it more, I would be repeating myself. I do have a life to live, you know.
The Lakers aren't the only big market team getting favorable treatment. But you know why they are hated by many non-Lakers fans? Because they (this include the management, the coach, the players, and the fans) think that they are above everybody else. They just don't care about fairness. They think getting calls is their birthright. They think they can just daggle glamour in front of free agent stars and snatch them from other teams simply because they are the LA LA land Lakers. That's why the Lakers are hated. That's why I hate the Lakers with a passion.
Drexler, c'mon now... I was trying to irritate you by attributing "viable" to you again. <backing away with a smile on my face and my hands in the air>
