Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Discussion about new sports facilities in Kansas City
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:14 pm

kcdcchef wrote:there is not ONE piece of writing, anywhere, where al davis, says, i am not happy with the stadium, or the renovations. NONE.

you choose to base your argument on implications, which, are your opinions. al davis or the oakland athletics, are not bitching about the collesium.


Whatever dude, if ignoring the reality of the situation and ducking the point suits your fancy, be my guest. 

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:18 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:Whatever dude, if ignoring the reality of the situation and ducking the point suits your fancy, be my guest. 


do you have proof al davis is unhappy with the stadium, or the renovations? do you have proof he has said that? yes, or no?
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:22 pm

kcdcchef wrote:do you have proof al davis is unhappy with the stadium, or the renovations? do you have proof he has said that? yes, or no?


Yes! He sued the county to get out of the joint right after it was done.  Thats what I would call unhappy. 

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:23 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:Yes! He sued the county to get out of the joint right after it was done.  Thats what I would call unhappy. 



sorry. nice try. in that said suit, he speaks of team revenues, and lack of sell out crowds.

proof, lenexatokcmo, would be saying, the stadium, or its renovations, are sub par. have you heard him say that once? do you have it in writing??

if not, you do not have proof.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:39 pm

kcdcchef wrote:
sorry. nice try. in that said suit, he speaks of team revenues, and lack of sell out crowds.



Sorry, nice try.  Those were his legal grounds.  He couldn't just back out becuase he wanted to. 

kcdcchef wrote:proof, lenexatokcmo, would be saying, the stadium, or its renovations, are sub par. have you heard him say that once? do you have it in writing??

if not, you do not have proof.


Internet Forum Bully Tactic #1 - if you don't like someone's point and can't create any sort of coherent argument to counter it, latch onto tangential/inconsequential details and relentlessly post demands for "writen evidence" all the while ignoring any other aspect of his point and if the person you are arguing with produces evidence and more logical arguments, dismiss it out of hand as being unsatisfactory to you no matter how cogent it is and keep demanding more rather than addressing the point. 

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:45 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:Sorry, nice try.  Those were his legal grounds.  He couldn't just back out becuase he wanted to. 





if anyone on behalf of oakland alameda county promised al davis sell outs, then, he was lied to by the county. however, his contention, was simply, that he was promised sell outs to move from los angeles, and never happened. DID HE SAY HE WAS UNHAPPY WITH RENOVATIONS OR NOT??? DID HE SAY HE WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE STADIUM OR NOT??? no, you cannot prove your bs.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:
Internet Forum Bully Tactic #1 - if you don't like someone's point and can't create any sort of coherent argument to counter it, latch onto tangential/inconsequential details and relentlessly post demands for "writen evidence" all the while ignoring any other aspect of his point and if the person you are arguing with produces evidence and more logical arguments, dismiss it out of hand as being unsatisfactory to you no matter how cogent it is and keep demanding more rather than addressing the point.




do you have proof or not, in writing, not implications, IN WRITING, that al davis is unhappy with his stadium, or it's renovations? DO YOU HAVE PROOF THAT AL DAVIS IS NOT HAPPY WITH HIS STADIUM??????????
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:51 pm

kcdcchef wrote:
if anyone on behalf of oakland alameda county promised al davis sell outs, then, he was lied to by the county. however, his contention, was simply, that he was promised sell outs to move from los angeles, and never happened. DID HE SAY HE WAS UNHAPPY WITH RENOVATIONS OR NOT??? DID HE SAY HE WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE STADIUM OR NOT??? no, you cannot prove your bs.


He put the writing on the wall as big and clear as it can be.  If you want to pretend it isn't there, thats your issue. 

kcdcchef wrote:do you have proof or not, in writing, not implications, IN WRITING, that al davis is unhappy with his stadium, or it's renovations? DO YOU HAVE PROOF THAT AL DAVIS IS NOT HAPPY WITH HIS STADIUM??????????


Thank you for proving my last point. 

Chef as always, you make this forum so enjoyable, with your great respect for your fellow forum members, your moderate and reasonable tone, and your willingness to listen to others.  We all know that we can relly on you to hear us out and listen to our points and that we will get reasonable, on-point, responses.  Not at all like talking to some of the folks you meet on the web today, who have no respect for others opinions, willingness to listen to other opinions, or ability to carry on a reasonable debate without getting off point or engaging in non-constructive debate tactics. 
Last edited by LenexatoKCMO on Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby lock+load » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:06 pm

kcdcchef wrote:do you have proof or not, in writing, not implications, IN WRITING, that al davis is unhappy with his stadium, or it's renovations? DO YOU HAVE PROOF THAT AL DAVIS IS NOT HAPPY WITH HIS STADIUM??????????


Do you have proof in writing of anything you say?  You are the most obnoxious person for anyone to have a discussion with.  You make up facts, figures and create a false reality, all the while calling others out to prove every little detail of what they way.  You are a hypocrite, plain and simple.  I will now refrain from any further discussions with chef about anything related to the stadiums.

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:14 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:He put the writing on the wall as big and clear as it can be.  If you want to pretend it isn't there, thats your issue. 



you do not have proof. quit wasting my time. you cannot prove it. he put the writing on the wall, yeah, that is great. he did not say it, so, give it up. please.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:

Chef as always, you make this forum so enjoyable, with your great respect for your fellow forum members, your moderate and reasonable tone, and your willingness to listen to others.  We all know that we can relly on you to hear us out and listen to our points and that we will get reasonable, on-point, responses. Not at all like talking to some of the folks you meet on the web today, who have no respect for others opinions, willingness to listen to other opinions, or ability to carry on a reasonable debate without getting off point or engaging in non-constructive debate tactics.


i will go back and forth with this shit all day long. you can attack my writing, spelling grammar, attitude, whatever you wish...................but, the bottom line is, all you can prove with the oakland colliseium is that you think, and feel based on his actions, al davis wants a new stadium. sure, he has never said it, but, you know, i am pretty sure he wants one.

lock&load wrote:Do you have proof in writing of anything you say? You are the most obnoxious person for anyone to have a discussion with. You make up facts, figures and create a false reality, all the while calling others out to prove every little detail of what they way. You are a hypocrite, plain and simple. I will now refrain from any further discussions with chef about anything related to the stadiums.


good. thank god. i am tired of reading your replies anyway lockandload. you never back up anything you say anyways. i provide links from time to time, this argument i am in with lenexa is simple. he cannot provide one link ANYWHERE where al davis says " i want a new stadium".

figures you would support that.

and thank you for not talking to me anymore, that makes my day.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:20 pm

kcdcchef wrote: he put the writing on the wall, yeah, that is great. he did not say it, so, give it up. please.


So despite the fact that every aspect of the situation confirms my point, the fact that Al didn't vocalize a particular phrase that you are demanding for him to have said, ex post facto, makes my entire point invalid? 

Way to prove me wrong about your ability to listen to others and engage in meaningful debate without stooping to intellectually dishonest tactics.  Have you noticed that fewer and fewer forum members are even willing to come near the stadiums sub folder?  Now there are only a tricke of people even willing to read the threads.  Have you ever thought about the reason?  Is it because you changed all of their minds about the issue and they no longer feel any need to read up about one of the most important issues in recent history of the city?  Or could it be that your pervasive, ever-present, dismissive, toxic discourse that fills up every thread has become so repugnant that no one can stand the stench long enough to even look in here any more? 
Last edited by LenexatoKCMO on Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:25 pm

LenexatoKCMO wrote:So despite the fact that every aspect of the situation confirms my point, the fact that Al didn't vocalize a particular phrase that you are demanding for him to have said, ex post facto, makes my entire point invalid? 

Way to prove me wrong about your ability to listen to others and engage in meaningful debate without stooping to intellectually dishonest tactics. 


no, you just said that al davis was complaining, and whining that the stadium and its renovations were inadequate, and you have failed to find one credible source to show him saying that.

implying something, and saying it, are 2 different things. you know that. and to be honest, you have not even proven he implied it. being unhappy with no sellouts, in 2 cities and 2 stadiums, has little if anything to do with stadiums and renovations. arrowhead was brand new and the chiefs could not sell it out until 1993.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

User avatar
49r
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:08 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby 49r » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:22 pm

The straw man fallacy is a rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position; deriving from the use of straw men in combat training.
[edit]
In logic and rhetoric

A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument.
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:
Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.
An example of the Straw Man technique would be:
Debater A: "I don't think that children should play out in the busy streets."
Debater B: "I think it's very cruel to deny children their freedom to play out of doors, or to go wherever they please. Children should not be kept locked-up in their own homes as my opponent suggests."
However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.
As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous.
The name 'straw man' comes from a physical analogy which highlights the fallacious nature of the a straw man argument. Imagine two men in a fight. The first person throws a punch at the second, and the second person, in defence, builds a man from straw, starts throwing punches at it, and later claims victory for winning the fight against the other person.

User avatar
timberwolfrider
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:06 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby timberwolfrider » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:49 pm

Yo lenexatokcmo and kcdcchef

Shut up. Noone cares about Al Davis and Oakland. This is Kansas City, we all hate the Raiders. Well, if you are a man, you do.

Back to the stadiums. I was just at Crown Center having lunch today, there were signs at 14 places I counted, inside the mall, with signs for save our stadiums.

Man, this thing is passing. You guys need to give it up. There are not people on other sights that think a downtown stadium is a good idea, they also agree that you guys are stupid for wanting to lose Kauffman and Arrowhead.

lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby lock+load » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:53 pm

timberwolfrider wrote:Yo lenexatokcmo and kcdcchef

Shut up. Noone cares about Al Davis and Oakland. This is Kansas City, we all hate the Raiders. Well, if you are a man, you do.

Back to the stadiums. I was just at Crown Center having lunch today, there were signs at 14 places I counted, inside the mall, with signs for save our stadiums.

Man, this thing is passing. You guys need to give it up. There are not people on other sights that think a downtown stadium is a good idea, they also agree that you guys are stupid for wanting to lose Kauffman and Arrowhead.


It is site, not sight.  Weren't you just saying in another thread to ignore opinions you don't agree with?  Two posts and you're already contradicting yourself!  A new record.

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:54 pm

lock&load wrote:It is site, not sight.  Weren't you just saying in another thread to ignore opinions you don't agree with?  Two posts and you're already contradicting yourself!  A new record.


correcting spelling as normal. good for you lockandload.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:10 pm

timberwolfrider wrote:
Shut up. . . .

Man, this thing is passing. You guys need to give it up. There are not people on other sights that think a downtown stadium is a good idea, they also agree that you guys are stupid for wanting to lose Kauffman and Arrowhead.




Welcome to the board, Thanks for demonstrating right off the bat that you bring a nice, respectful attitude.  Its very obvious from your post that you value and listen to the opinions of others without stooping to jouvenile crap.   :roll:

lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby lock+load » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:54 pm

kcdcchef wrote:correcting spelling as normal. good for you lockandload.


I wasn't talking to you yet you still feel the need to respond.  It was actually the wrong word, not incorrect spelling.  I cannot help it that you spell at a sixth grade level.  Don't take it out on me.

User avatar
kcdcchef
The Quiet Chair
The Quiet Chair
Posts: 8804
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:48 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pennsylvania

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby kcdcchef » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:57 pm

lock&load wrote:I wasn't talking to you yet you still feel the need to respond.  It was actually the wrong word, not incorrect spelling.  I cannot help it that you spell at a sixth grade level.  Don't take it out on me.



i thought you were ignoring me. damn. too good to be true.
MU FINISHED THE YEAR RANKED HIGHER IN HOOPS AND FOOTBALL THAN THE KAY U JAYDORKS. UP YOURS KAY U JAYDORK FANS!!!! :D :D :D :D :D

lock+load
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:25 am
Location: brookside

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby lock+load » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:04 pm

kcdcchef wrote:
i thought you were ignoring me. damn. too good to be true.


Stadium related comments are being ignored. 

User avatar
timberwolfrider
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:06 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Re: Stadiums not an economic boon for taxpayers

Postby timberwolfrider » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:18 pm

lock&load wrote:It is site, not sight.  Weren't you just saying in another thread to ignore opinions you don't agree with?  Two posts and you're already contradicting yourself!  A new record.


Actually, both spellings are accepted. And in the other thread, I was speaking to those who dislike certain posters. I can see you are popular here.

You are just pissed off because the stadium thing is probably going to pass in 2 weeks. Get over it lock&load, it will pass, and we will still have our teams.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:Welcome to the board, Thanks for demonstrating right off the bat that you bring a nice, respectful attitude.  Its very obvious from your post that you value and listen to the opinions of others without stooping to jouvenile crap.  :roll:




I do value opinions, but, you and chef need to shut the heck up about Al Davis, and, by the way, no, you never did prove Al Davis wants a new stadium, or is unhappy with the current one. Sorry, just the truth, chef rubs me wrong too, but, he is right.


Return to “New Stadiums Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest