Webber the businessman
- Thread starter thedofd
- Start date
NME said:
No, that's a different forum where the Maloofs are the antichrist(s). Here, it's clearly Webber. 
Honestly, I don't know what posts were deleted or what PM's passed around between those who were banned and the mods and other members but really and truly? There were some horrible posts on the old site that referred to Vlade and Peja that nobody was ever banned for so I guess I don't really see anything in this thread that was as bad as some of those. I'm just confused, I guess...
I guess I'll take myself off to the timeout corner, I'm a fairly well behaved child most of the time...
KK!
Why does he deserve credit for starting a business? It's not a non-profit LLC.
I'm all for giving Webber the credit when he does something good, but I don't think he deserves credit for building condos under the thinly veiled guise of helping the community.
However, I'm not saying Webber is a degenerate with no redeeming qualities. I just think he should get credit where credit is due. Like last night, for instance. He attended KJ's St. Hope's fundraiser. That's a good thing. Give the man a gold star for that.
But I just don't see why he deserves praise for making a smart financial decision to generate revenue, unless you're a member of his family.
I'm all for giving Webber the credit when he does something good, but I don't think he deserves credit for building condos under the thinly veiled guise of helping the community.
However, I'm not saying Webber is a degenerate with no redeeming qualities. I just think he should get credit where credit is due. Like last night, for instance. He attended KJ's St. Hope's fundraiser. That's a good thing. Give the man a gold star for that.
But I just don't see why he deserves praise for making a smart financial decision to generate revenue, unless you're a member of his family.
The way I understand the new and improved rules of the board, discussions berating/complaining/questioning the moderating are to be taken to PM, not hammered out over and over on the board, as it destroys threads. Dissenting opinions are great and the board would be boring if everyone agreed about everything (and when you read the thread, there is plenty of dissension remaining ) but I think they just might be serious about not letting moderating issues permeate otherwise semi-civil discussions
.
Agreed. He doesn't need any praise for it, nor does it merit recriminations. I do hope he goes forward with his original plans for the Sac area, but time will only tell.
) but I think they just might be serious about not letting moderating issues permeate otherwise semi-civil discussions .
Agreed. He doesn't need any praise for it, nor does it merit recriminations. I do hope he goes forward with his original plans for the Sac area, but time will only tell.
the more relevant question might be is there any even remotely rational reason why him starting this business should inspire people to call him a "spoiled brat", a "hypcritical, deceptive, lying boob", "the spinmeister supreme" etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam?
Would John Doe really incur such wrath if he started up a development company and announced future plans to "bring jobs, revitalize neighborhoods and inspire other individuals and businesses to invest in the community"? Or does it have more to do with anything that Chris Webber touches inspiring a knee jerk reaction in some that it must be part of a dastardly plan to conquer the world.
Would John Doe really incur such wrath if he started up a development company and announced future plans to "bring jobs, revitalize neighborhoods and inspire other individuals and businesses to invest in the community"? Or does it have more to do with anything that Chris Webber touches inspiring a knee jerk reaction in some that it must be part of a dastardly plan to conquer the world.
Well...that's a good question. But I think it's rational to make an assumption based on previous experiences. While the derogations you mentioned might be a tad extreme for my tastes, I think calling it "spin" might be the most accurate.
Like I said, it's not charity...it's a condominium.
But no big deal. He doesn't deserve to be crucified for that bit of fudgery, but it's not that hard to understand why people would want to.
While John Doe, or some other random unknown business person might be neutrally recieved by the general public about their business intentions, it should come as little suprise that a person like Chris (who has a reputation among some to be a selfish person) might be skeptically recieved. Again, I'm not saying Chris deserves the reputation of being the evil spawn of satan, but he shouldn't be considered a saint either.
So if your question is if he deserves to be called all sorts of names? Not exactly, but I think a fairer question is if it's so wrong to call a spade a spade?
Like I said, it's not charity...it's a condominium.
But no big deal. He doesn't deserve to be crucified for that bit of fudgery, but it's not that hard to understand why people would want to.
While John Doe, or some other random unknown business person might be neutrally recieved by the general public about their business intentions, it should come as little suprise that a person like Chris (who has a reputation among some to be a selfish person) might be skeptically recieved. Again, I'm not saying Chris deserves the reputation of being the evil spawn of satan, but he shouldn't be considered a saint either.
So if your question is if he deserves to be called all sorts of names? Not exactly, but I think a fairer question is if it's so wrong to call a spade a spade?
Really?
So then if Bobby Jackson decides to go into business tommorow my response should be "sure, he's just looking to open a front for all of his coke snorting drug dealing scumbag friends"?
If Doug Christie decides to build some condos my response should be "I wonder if they'll allow women to rent them out, or maybe require them all to wear burkas so as not to offend his wife"?
You can perhaps see the problem with responding to a totally neutral action, actually one generally considered positive (starting a business, building housing)by smothering it in a sensationalistic take on all sort of unrelated personal crap from someone's past. Of course it only gets worse if I then inform you that you are a complete ignoramus for not admitting the obvious duplicity inherent in these individuals starting a business.
Its something you only do if you have a bias and an agenda. Every thread mentioning Chris Webber's name, no matter how innocuous the topic, is not an excuse to bounce on in spewing the same ole ugliness onto the board. How about we wait until he does something that half of the well respected businessmen around the country have not done before starting the stake-buring once again.
So then if Bobby Jackson decides to go into business tommorow my response should be "sure, he's just looking to open a front for all of his coke snorting drug dealing scumbag friends"?
If Doug Christie decides to build some condos my response should be "I wonder if they'll allow women to rent them out, or maybe require them all to wear burkas so as not to offend his wife"?
You can perhaps see the problem with responding to a totally neutral action, actually one generally considered positive (starting a business, building housing)by smothering it in a sensationalistic take on all sort of unrelated personal crap from someone's past. Of course it only gets worse if I then inform you that you are a complete ignoramus for not admitting the obvious duplicity inherent in these individuals starting a business.
Its something you only do if you have a bias and an agenda. Every thread mentioning Chris Webber's name, no matter how innocuous the topic, is not an excuse to bounce on in spewing the same ole ugliness onto the board. How about we wait until he does something that half of the well respected businessmen around the country have not done before starting the stake-buring once again.
Last edited: