If he went to college, he would have been caught up in the college party lifestyle. Wouldn't had worked on his game as much as he got to in Europe. Going overseas made him become his own man and matured him. Gave him lots of responsibilities to take on. He goes to college, he becomes the "man". In Europe, he was just one of the guys off the bench. I'd say he biggest reason why he looks so good right now is the fact that he skipped college and went to Europe for a job.
Close but no cigar. We were debating about why the market tanked, and how bank leaders were purposly making lot's of dough while taking their bank down the gutter. That was your assertion (is that not true??), while mine and others was just that the market went bad...and it wasn't because bank leaders were robbing folks. Your claim was that it went bad because of fraud. The settled case is related to the bank paying bonuses out to employees, so I don't exactly see how that relates. Are you trying to say a bank settling for paying out bonuses equates to the reasoning you said the market tanked due to fraud?? Nice try...... Also, do you care to answer how Jennings get's a higher draft pick in one year without going to a D1 school? We are still waiting....
Uh, the case did not settle, because Judge Rakoff refused to approve the settlement. I can see you're really up on these things, anyway to clarify, here's the terms: Let's see, the government is suing them filing a fraudulent proxy statement and lying to investors regarding bonus payments in connection with the government backed merger - I'm pretty sure that this is fraud. You owe me one signature. For about the 3rd time, it's a hypothetical, and I've answered this several pages ago. Read the thread. There is no such thing as a time machine so I'm not sure why people are getting their panties in a twist about it. I apologize for blowing all of your minds.
Uh, the case did not settle, because Judge Rakoff refused to approve the settlement - he thought BOA was getting off to lightly. I can see you're really up on these things, anyway to clarify, here's the terms: Let's see, the government is suing them for filing a fraudulent proxy statement and lying to investors regarding bonus payments in connection with the government backed merger - I'm pretty sure that this is fraud. You owe me one signature. For about the 3rd time, it's a hypothetical, and I've answered this several pages ago. Read the thread. There is no such thing as a time machine so I'm not sure why people are getting their panties in a twist about it. I apologize for blowing all of your minds.
Again, were we debating bonus payments or was the premise of our argument you asserting that the market tanked because dudes at the top were committing fraud for their benefit, while myself and others noted the just got caught holding the bag? Nice try but I'm not sure how ML issuing bonuses early applies to what we were debating. And we know him being the #1 pick is a hypothetical. But can you at least make it one that was somewhat possible? He wasn't going to a D1 school, so it makes no sense to keep using that example. So either give us an example that shows how he could have gotten picked higher taking a route available to him or eat your crow. It makes no sense to keep saying 4m > 1m based off a hypothetical that had 0% chance of occurring.
I don't think you're blowing anyones mind except your own? The hypothetical is far too stretched since it introduces too many variables to be realistic.
The charge was that they filed a fraudulent proxy statement - do you even know what that is? It fits the definition to a T of what you said would never happen. The whole exchange was an outgrowth of an assertion that the fact that there was a bailout itself meant the government had determined there was no fraudulent conduct at banks ever - silly in and of itself because the gov't was maintaining criminal prosecutions at the time. Actually, what happened, IIRC, was that he did pass it and was all set to go to Arizona, but the NCAA invalidated his score as it was too much of an improvement, and they suspected funny business. He could have taken it again but declined to. As to whether or not he would have made the mythical 700 or whatever he needed on his final try - we shall never know. Hence the speculation if he had. EDIT: actually he did take it again, but he never got his score (or at least never said what it was) because he turned pro before getting the results. Really? The precedent for top high school players qualifying and then dominating in the NCAA is unrealistic? It seems to happen rather frequently, IMO.
Again, your spin attempt isn't working. This will be lengthy but O want to show just how misleading you are being (whether accidental or not...there were a lot of posts and maybe you got confused). The thread started because some banks that got bailout money paid out bonuses. One poster noted the 2007 earnings were bs: Major noted that the earnings were real, but fell when the market tanked: Then you two started to debate about real vs fake returns. Then you compared what happened to a scheme (aka fraud), as opposed to just the market going bad: Then Major tells you things happened because the economy slowed and assets weren't valued properly, i.e. not fraud (compared to the Madoff scheme). Then I came in and noted that 2007 bonuses were based on 2007 earnings, which were real (i.e. you cash out then you do just fine). You then, in response to Major noting that the assets would still be profitable if the economy didn't tank, make another comparison to Madoff...i.e. fraud.....and basically say Oneal will have legal bills to pay for this (i.e. saying the Oneal situation is basically fraud like the Madoff one): Which led to my quite clear response: You clearly state that it was fradulent: And my response: And this: And this: And this: I could go on and on....but there really is no need as I have posted enough already. So again I ask, were we debating bonus payments or was the premise of our argument you asserting that the market tanked because dudes at the top were committing fraud for their benefit, while myself and others noted the just got caught holding the bag? Nice try but I'm not sure how ML issuing bonuses early applies to what we were debating. You now claim "The whole exchange was an outgrowth of an assertion that the fact that there was a bailout itself meant the government had determined there was no fraudulent conduct at banks ever". I think my above posts show that that statement is pure BS...but again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt since there was a lot of exchange in that thread. But it's quite evident from the above points how that debate started and exactly what we were debating about. The market tanking is not fraud, and I still stand by that. Let me know when someone goes to jail for that....
So until we can show that he was D1 eligible, isn't it kind of silly to make hypotheticals that have him going to a D1 school? I know it's all hypothetical but that's like me saying let's dream of us getting LeBron and Wade to split the MLE next year. Yeah, I can pawn it off as a hypothetical but it makes no sense to make an argument about it using that hypothetical as support. It's not relevant in this case until you can show us how he was D1 eligible. If you can't then remove that option off the table. So again, how was he going to get a higher draft pick when he couldn't go to a D1 school? I have asked this like 4 times....
Neither did your lengthy series of quotes which I didn't, read, and don't plan on reading, but if you want to bump that old thread go ahead and repost it in there and I'll address it. God, have you ever had a discussion before about something that could have happened, but didn't? Ever in your life? I'm sorry that the concept of "what if" is so difficult for you to understand. My question is WHAT IF he had gone to Arizona and played. This of course presumes for discussion purposes only that his third and final ACT attempt was successful (or that alternatively, his second attempt was indeed a legitimate one). I didn't say that I have administered a polygraph test to him and determined that his 2008 score was indeed legitimate. I didn't say that I used the large hadron collider to create multiple wormholes which ruptured space time in order to give him an SAT prep course and fix his basic math skills. I didn't say that MacGyver had used a toothpick, four pennies, and a ball of string to hypnotize the NCAA clearinghouse to grant him eligibilty. I'm hypothetically assuming for discussion purposes only that he got a passing grade on his 3rd attempt (which has never been disclosed). The fact that you can't understand that means you shouldn't be participating in the thread, IMO, so please feel free to ignore this and any other hypothetical questions that arise on the BBS which tend to arise from time to time. Also, let me know which option you chose in the poll so that I can deduct it from the results. I trust, however, that the poll so baffled you with its very existence that you did not deign to answer it - Good choice if so. Maybe next time, hypothetically, if you see a thread by me (or anybody, positing a set of circumstances not currently in existence, be they past present or future), you should just ignore it instead of throwing a multi-day hissyfit like an angry 14 year old who just team-killed by a bunch of cheaters at world of warcraft.
No need to bump the thread. I posted most of it here. You can dodge it here just like you can dodge it there. I have no problems with hypotheticals. But as another poster noted: Your response to that was well...another impossible hypothetical?? Edit: And my comments about eating crow were in reference to you saying Europe was a mistake, as opposed to your hypothetical in this thread.
1. It was not impossible. 2. Even if it was, that's the point of the thread, to suspend disbelief. You must be a real prize to be around when discussing works of fiction. You should become a movie critic - then you can issue pithy reviews like "the Fantastic Mr. Fox - two thumbs down, because obviously foxes can't talk! Their vocal cords aren't developed enough. D'OH!"
Fiction is fine. But if it;s pure fiction, then stop telling folks to disprove 4M < 1M. So was Europe still a failure as opposed to the other options available to him (the realistic ones)?
If you want to find out, read the thread...thanks in advance. Meanwhile I have a question for you, why did you post this?: LOL - Dream would never play for Indiana. He never even came close to playing there. What are you smoking? And why do you assume Dream would just be traded for Smits straight up under the salary cap? How is that going to happen genius? Since it didn't happen and was not even possible - why were you posting about it?
I did read the thread. All I see is you refusing to acknowledge how Europe helped the kid. I have yet to see where you say it wasn't a mistake for him to go there. I will be happily corrected if you did note that it wasn't a mistake, based on his options. And again, hypotheticals are fine. It's not fine to tell folks things based on reality, going off some hypothetical with no chance of happening. And I believe I clarified that my beef isn't your hypothetical (except for when you ask someone to prove 4m<1m based off of it), but with you failing to address which possible option puts Jennings in a better situation, since You claimed he made a mistake. Again, I don't see that in this thread.
My beef with you is why do the Rockets trade Olajuwon to the Pacers? You have yet to explain this..please explain how this happens and why this happens.
Hypotheticals are fine. Now I am asking you a question based on reality. Did Jennings make a mistake going to Europe? I don't see where you have acknowledged that. If you are too much of a wuss to give a straight answer I won't hold it against you. It would look better than what you are trying to pull from your last few posts.
Yes, I voted option 1 in the poll. Because after he gets through dominating at Arizona last season, he would have been drafted much higher. This was discussed earlier. That's my take, specific to the parameters of the hypothetical that I outlined. Much like you believe that after the Rockets trade Hakeem Olajuwon to the Pacers for George McCloud and a 2nd round draft pick, or whatever parameters you outlined, the Pacers would have beat the Bulls.
Option #1 is fine, based on your hypothetical situation. I understand the thread is about a hypothetical. You voted #1 on your hypothetical....thanks for informing me. Again, to clarify, I am asking you a question based on the REALISTIC options that were available to him. A D1 school was not an option. Based on the options that were available to him, did he make a good decision to go to Europe? Very simple question....
I have a solution for you..start your own thread, set your own parameters, and make it a public poll. I promise I will vote.
