Webber the businessman

[kingskings!]

One project Webber has kicked around, said John Frisch, manager of Cornish & Carey Commercial/Oncor International's Sacramento office, was a 50-acre entertainment, retail and office complex near Arco Arena. However, "It's not what he's working on currently," said Erika Bjork, community development director for C. Webb Inc., his company.

Ups and downs: Webber's reputation in Sacramento and throughout the league has been rocky at times. He had faced trial on perjury charges in connection with a probe of improper donations in his college basketball days, but pleaded guilty in 2003 to a reduced charge of criminal contempt. In 1998 he was cleared of misdemeanor charges of possessing marijuana and resisting arrest during a traffic stop. Some Kings fans had hurt feelings when Webber threatened to leave Sacramento -- but that was before gaining in 2001 his seven-year, $122.7 million contract.

I am so glad to see that CWebb has overcome the humiliation of the 8 boo-birds at Arco to reinstate his plan to help the disadvantaged youth in the Sacto community which he threatened to withhold support from in the aftermath of his booing. I guess disadvantaged youth will be taking tickets at the movie theatre, handing us our change at The Gap, and cleaning the offices if his current development project ever gets off the ground.

Somehow, I had something more Kevin Johnson-like in mind......but I guess two St. Hope Academy's was too much to hope for...or even a cash infusion into the CURRENT St. Hope Academy. Some folks have dreams of helping others, some have hopes that putting cash in their own pockets will make others think they've been helped...jeez, sounds like an empty Republican promise to me!

Anyone else remember those fun days of White Chocolate and CWebb racing Mercedes' recklessly from Arco to the Pocket along I-5? Or after the move out to Placer County the countless times they'd been stopped along I-80 that actually resulted in tickets rather than a star-struck "can I have your autograph and please slow down if it doesn't inconvenience you" CHP stops?

Oh man, I did not start out as a Webber hater, but the years just keep putting mileage on my patience with this spoiled brat.

FWIW, when the Detroit charges first surfaced and the haters appeared my response for the first year or so was "he didn't do anything other elite college players do and everyone knows it". sigh...

A very demoralized KK!

P.S. No, I have NOT reached hater status, at least in my own mind, but I am very slowly becoming tired of the distance between his public words and private actions. Hey, even dyed in the wool Lakers fans have been burnt out by both Kobe and (former Laker) Shaq!

 

[Kingsgurl]

I am so glad to see that CWebb has overcome the humiliation of the 8 boo-birds at Arco to reinstate his plan to help the disadvantaged youth in the Sacto community which he threatened to withhold support from in the aftermath of his booing

Threatened to withhold support from? He temporarily stopped plans to build some sort of rec center for disadvantaged youth, mostly because he was unclear on his future here, at that time. The fact that he even HAD a plan to help out the youth seems to get buried in the zeal to lynch him for placing it on hold.
He is branching out into business. I don't know how you run your business, but most don't just donate to charity, while doing nothing to bring in revenue. If they do, they are either a non-profit org, or out of business soon

BTW, it was a lot more than 8, there were more than 8 in my section alone.

 

[Markezi]

Threatened to withhold support from? He temporarily stopped plans to build some sort of rec center for disadvantaged youth, mostly because he was unclear on his future here, at that time. The fact that he even HAD a plan to help out the youth seems to get buried in the zeal to lynch him for placing it on hold.
He is branching out into business. I don't know how you run your business, but most don't just donate to charity, while doing nothing to bring in revenue. If they do, they are either a non-profit org, or out of business soon

BTW, it was a lot more than 8, there were more than 8 in my section alone.

You don't get it. He has a history of talking simply to hear himself talk. To make himself (in his mind) look good. To say good things without ever backing them up, and almost always resulting in him looking like a hypcritical, deceptive, lying boob.

Debate his effectiveness on the court: fine. But suggest that he is a good person because he says he stopped a plan to help disadvantaged youth at a time when he was whining about how his gigantic ego was injured because a couple people booed him is INSANE. Even if it was true, how lame is it that he penalizes those kids because he's upset that he was rightfully booed?

Par for the course. Face reality: the guy has the integrity of a third grader.

 

[Bricklayer]

You don't get it. He has a history of talking simply to hear himself talk. To make himself (in his mind) look good. To say good things without ever backing them up, and almost always resulting in him looking like a hypcritical, deceptive, lying boob.

Debate his effectiveness on the court: fine. But suggest that he is a good person because he says he stopped a plan to help disadvantaged youth at a time when he was whining about how his gigantic ego was injured because a couple people booed him is INSANE. Even if it was true, how lame is it that he penalizes those kids because he's upset that he was rightfully booed?

Par for the course. Face reality: the guy has the integrity of a third grader.

How lame is that someone would dare to criticize someone who even THINKS of starting up a center for disadvantaged children. Let alone someone who is actually going to go through with it. Have you started one?

This may come as a shocker to a certain group of incredibly self-absorbed Sacramento fandom, but Webb is NOT from Sacramento, his sole connection with this city is through his profession. If he was going to be turned on or traded from the community, why would he choose to put an academy down here? I can absolutely guarantee you there are kids just as disadvantaged in Detroit, in NY, in his home town and every other city he might end up in. Plenty of places to try to help the kiddies. But helping the kids in Sacramento as opposed to the kids somewhere else is ENTIRELY dependant on his relationship with the town.

 

[Markezi]

How lame is that someone would dare to criticize someone who even THINKS of starting up a center for disadvantaged children. Let alone someone who is actually going to go through with it. Have you started one?

Twisting my post around to patronize me accomplishes nothing but showing that you aren't reading the posts thoroughly, and instead are looking for fodder to further your (extremely questionable) point. The point that was being made was that it's ridiculous for someone to use the example of him "saying" the right thing (at the wrong moment) as evidence that he is a good person, when history has unequivocally shown that he lies. Often.

 

[Markezi]

You know, it's so hypocritical when people on this board whine about people bagging on Webber.

If you choose to deify a person by choosing to ignore history, both past and current, be prepared to face facts.

Just like you wish to refute negative posts, those of us who disagree wish to refute sensationalistic "positive" ones. We all have the right to our opinion.

 

[Bricklayer]

You know, it's so hypocritical when people on this board whine about people bagging on Webber.

If you choose to deify a person by choosing to ignore history, both past and current, be prepared to face facts.

Just like you wish to refute negative posts, those of us who disagree wish to refute sensationalistic "positive" ones. We all have the right to our opinion.

I actually find it more hypocritcial when the attack dogs suddenly turn into sniveling whiners when they themselves feel the bite, but whatever. It must be fun to be a martyr.

Now back on point:

let me recap your spurious argument from above:

1) Webb was lying when he said he might be suspending work on a youth center in Sacto after the community turned on him
2) Even if he was not lying, he's still a jerk for ever having even thought of such a thing

Ignoring for a moment the far more likely: 3) Webb was very upset at that moment and having all sorts of dark thoughts that he eventually decided were not reasonable (as anyone who's ever experienced rejection of any sort can associate with), my response regarding your criticism was clearly aimed at point #2. A point you made, not one that I made up.

I ignored your first point because it had no particular basis in anything other than your own personal bias. He could have supsended work and then resumed. He could have intended to suspend work, and then changed his mind. Neither would be lying. Of course nobody knows the truth of the matter. Except you of course.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... Just like you wish to refute negative posts, those of us who disagree wish to refute sensationalistic "positive" ones. We all have the right to our opinion.

You wouldn't know it to listen to you and Garliguy sometimes; we all have the right to our opinion, you say, unless it's to refute your own negative opinion. Then, it's censorship, or not allowing dissenting viewpoints, or other similar malarkey. Having the right to express our opinion should mean that we have the right to criticize, but it should also mean that we have the right to criticize the critcizer.

I've never been able to understand how it is that you appear to have convinced yourself that it's only okay to have a dissenting viewpoint as long as the viewpoint that people are dissenting to isn't yours. Maybe it's not fair that I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but your posts (and Garliguy’s) often come across to me as though you're implying that posters are only justified in being argumentative if they have what would typically be classified as a contrary opinion. As though, “critical” posters are somehow exempt from criticism themselves; that the only acceptable response by a “Pollyanna,” as you might call them, is to turn the other cheek… Why is it that you seem to think that it’s okay to make snide comments to (or otherwise attack) the moderators, but it’s not okay for them to respond in kind? How is that not hypocritical?

I also do not think that it is a coincidence in the least that you only appear to think that positive opinions are “sensationalistic.” Funny how that works out, though.

 

[Markezi]

I actually find it more hypocritcial when the attack dogs suddenly turn into sniveling whiners when they themselves feel the bite, but whatever. It must be fun to be a martyr.

Now back on point:

let me recap your spurious argument from above:

1) Webb was lying when he said he might be suspending work on a youth center in Sacto after the community turned on him
2) Even if he was not lying, he's still a jerk for ever having even thought of such a thing

Ignoring for a moment the far more likely: 3) Webb was very upset at that moment and having all sorts of dark thoughts that he eventually decided were not reasonable (as anyone who's ever experienced rejection of any sort can associate with), my response regarding your criticism was clearly aimed at point #2. A point you made, not one that I made up.

I ignored your first point because it had no particular basis in anything other than your own personal bias. He could have supsended work and then resumed. He could have intended to suspend work, and then changed his mind. Neither would be lying. Of course nobody knows the truth of the matter. Except you of course.

Hmm - OK, another example of a moderator personally attacking a poster. "Sniveling whiner." "Martyr." Way to set a good example - I guess everyone else will have to the bigger person. As usual.

Now back to your "points" -
1) I never said he was lying, I said his extensive history of lying makes it ridiculous to ASSUME that he wasn't lying.
2) I never said that either - nice Cheney impersenation. I said he was a jerk for shelving any plans he may have had for a children's project simply because his ego was bruised for being booed.

And regarding your last paragraph - huh? Dude - turn the mirror on yourself - it's like you're responding to your own posts. Please do us a favor and actually read my posts first. You're the kind of person who formulates your answer to an argument while the other person is still talking. I bet you're big with the girls...

 

[Ryle]

What's the over/under on how long it takes for this thread to be locked??

 

[Markezi]

You wouldn't know it to listen to you and Garliguy sometimes; we all have the right to our opinion, you say, unless it's to refute your own negative opinion. Then, it's censorship, or not allowing dissenting viewpoints, or other similar malarkey. Having the right to express our opinion should mean that we have the right to criticize, but it should also mean that we have the right to criticize the critcizer.

I've never been able to understand how it is that you appear to have convinced yourself that it's only okay to have a dissenting viewpoint as long as the viewpoint that people are dissenting to isn't yours. Maybe it's not fair that I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but your posts (and Garliguy’s) often come across to me as though you're implying that posters are only justified in being argumentative if they have what would typically be classified as a contrary opinion. As though, “critical” posters are somehow exempt from criticism themselves; that the only acceptable response by a “Pollyanna,” as you might call them, is to turn the other cheek… Why is it that you seem to think that it’s okay to make snide comments to (or otherwise attack) the moderators, but it’s not okay for them to respond in kind? How is that not hypocritical?

I also do not think that it is a coincidence in the least that you only appear to think that positive opinions are “sensationalistic.” Funny how that works out, though.

I understand you are unable to know what it's like to be in the shoes of someone who's opinion is not considered "popular" by the most fervent posters on this board. "Fervent" does not equal "intelligent" however. Regardless, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

So you don't get why it would be annoying to have your thoughtful, critical viewpoint labeled by moderators as being a "hater?" You don't understand why it's irritating to be edited, deleted and banned for simply writing an opinion about a player without any cursing or attacking whatsoever?

Still - judge away - I could care less. If people choose to be blind to a very prominant point of view shared by very likely the majority of sports fans (although clearly not the majority of this board), be my guest. It doesn't bother me - interesting why it does seem to bother you though...

 

[Garliguy]

Hey Slim, who peed in your cornflakes?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I understand you are unable to know what it's like to be in the shoes of someone who's opinion is not considered "popular" by the most fervent posters on this board. "Fervent" does not equal "intelligent" however. Regardless, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Fair enough; neither does "dissenting," though.

So you don't get why it would be annoying to have your thoughtful, critical viewpoint labeled by moderators as being a "hater?"

No. The way I see it, you are what you are. If I had a point of view that people identify with being a "hater," I'd just let it roll off my back and get on with my life. Why does the term "hater" bother you so much?

You don't understand why it's irritating to be edited, deleted and banned for simply writing an opinion about a player without any cursing or attacking whatsoever?

No, but I'm probably not as excitable as you are. It would probably irritate me if a mod edited my post, but not to the extent that I'd throw a fit over it. If it really bothered me, I'd PM the mod to ask them why they did it, and if I weren't satisfied with their answer, I'd take it to Jeremy. I don't feel the need to "call out" the mods on the board, but I'm funny that way.

Still - judge away - I could care less.

For someone who could care less, you sure seem to complain about it a lot...

 

[Mike B]

Slim,

Before you pop off about censorship being the ability of the many to disagree with the few, you should know that THAT isn't at all what the "few" are talking about. Only yesterday some of us had our postings removed yet again. When we speak of censorship, it is in response to that, and not in response to the disagreement.

Also, do you honestly believe that the "PM the Mods" hasn't been tried?

The mods tend to be all of one particular ilk. There needs to be a more balanced makeup. Still, I'll shutup now or risk being censored yet again.

If we all know that Markesi, Garliguy and I don't like Webber, why is our need to ignore the love-Webber posts any more pressing that the majority option of ignoring our posts?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Hey Slim, who peed in your cornflakes?

Probably Webber; the way I hear tell it, that cat's always up to no good...

 

[Garliguy]

Touche.

 

[Garliguy]

By the way, Slim, I think your characterizations about my posts are much too broad. There are several posters on this board who defend Webber to some extent, and I don't have a problem with their opinions at all. Superman, Brick (for the most part), uolj, and even you, for example, have expressed pro-Webber opinions and backed up the assertions with facts and observations. I disagree with the opinions, but I don't ever recall dismissing these particular posters as polyannas.

The opinions of the actual polyannas (who I define as having absurd loyalty to the exclustion of fact), I find quite entertaining. Ironically, when these people have their logic about a Kings player exposed, they, having become frustrated, attack the posters. The number of these posters has unfortunately grown, and one of these attackers is a moderator, no less!

So that's how I see it.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Slim,

Before you pop off about censorship being the ability of the many to disagree with the few, you should know that THAT isn't at all what the "few" are talking about. Only yesterday some of us had our postings removed yet again. When we speak of censorship, it is in response to that, and not in response to the disagreement.

Mike, I won't argue for or against, as I couldn't get online yesterday, and don't know the whole story, anyway. But I will say that deleting threads that don't violate the TOS in some way without a valid reason goes against what I know about the mods.

Whether or not a poster believes that his post should have been deleted, or whether or not a poster agrees with the reason his post was deleted isn't really the same as it being deleted for no reason at all, and that's not an issue that the poster and the mods are ever likely to agree on.

 

[VF21]

There are three members of this board who are, despite continued warnings, turning thread after thread into personal contentious arguments.

I, as a moderator, have the task of trying to keep this board flowing in a civilized manner. It's hard to do so when some people think they are above the rules of the board.

Therefore, I have temporarily suspended the posting privileges of three members of the board.

These things aren't new. They've been discussed over and over again.

We, the moderators, are trying not to do a lot of "on the board" moderating and posturing. In this case, however, it seems apparent that there is nothing that will dissuade some posters except a "time-out."

The board isn't about hating, bashing, personal attacks, etc. It's about discussing the team and doing so with respect for your fellow members. It's not about whether you like or dislike Webber, or any other player. It's about whether you can present your views without turning it personal, either against other members or the moderators.

Some things just aren't open to debate, no matter how much a few people might want to continue to debate them.

 

[mcsluggo]

You know, whenever Webber comes up on this board the back and forth between the jockers and the haters (kinda like the sochs and the greasers) is just too funny



its just unfortunate that Webber is a relatively obscure player who doesn't make it onto poster's radar screens very often.











btw, I mean funny in AT LEAST two senses of the word. Funny, as in it makes you laugh, like "funniest home videos" when they show someone getting racked so bad they pass out. You HAVE to laugh at that. And then its ALSO funny in the sense of "you forgot to empty the refrigerator before your 4 month trip to Europe", when you get back, something is bound to smell funny. The webber discussions on this board are just a world full of funny good times.



btw again, in case I sound too sarcastic: I"M SERIOUS when I say I like the Webber drama. Can you imagine how dull the KF offseason would be without SOMETHING like this? When you can't find a new Sean Chen you can ALWAYS build a new effigy of Webber.

 

[ReinadelosReys]

Does anyone else get think you could just create a thread entitled " Chris Webber"...leave nothing else in the text and it would go on for days and days?

 

[HndsmCelt]

Wow I have seen fatal trafic accidents that wre not as ugly as this thread (shakes head and moseses over to another tread)

 

[LPKingsFan]

Boo!

 

[love_them_kings]

Does anyone else get think you could just create a thread entitled " Chris Webber"...leave nothing else in the text and it would go on for days and days?

No question about it. It's entertaining at least! Hopefully when the season starts we can concentrate on cheering on our team, but until then we have to do something with our time, right?? : ) The thing that amazes me is how many people have such strong opinions about C webb. He's seems to be a hero or a devil, depending on who's talking! I love the guy, just the way I do the rest of the Kings. I hope to see him in top form this year, and am nervous and excited about seeing how his knee will hold up. I think we are a much better team with a (healthy) Webb. That said, I don't think he's perfect. The drug suspension frusterated me, and I don't like the lying under oath. His interviews can be controversial, but I think that's because he's a very emotional person who has every word examined under a microphone. Overall, he's human, and makes mistakes like the rest of us. He just happens to be an incredibly gifted athlete!! Go kings!

 

[exGrizzly]

Is this where we come to be banned? Personally, I didn't think the original post had much to do with the Kings in the first place, except that it involved a Kings player. Webber has tons of money so naturally he would be involved in business opportunities. I'm only concerned with how he plays on the court, acts in the locker room, and what he says to the media regarding the Kings.As for the "haters" vs the "mods" I guess my sympathy is with the "haters" because they always risk the possiblity of banishment from Kingdom for their opinions. And I have no problem with anti-webber rants. Just like the Bibby has no defense arguments, and Peja is soft stuff. As long as the negativity is not from trollers, then I just consider it normal venting

 

[Heuge]

Hey Slim, who peed in your cornflakes?

Finley!

 

[uolj]

No question about it. It's entertaining at least! Hopefully when the season starts we can concentrate on cheering on our team, but until then we have to do something with our time, right?? : ) The thing that amazes me is how many people have such strong opinions about C webb. He's seems to be a hero or a devil, depending on who's talking! I love the guy, just the way I do the rest of the Kings. I hope to see him in top form this year, and am nervous and excited about seeing how his knee will hold up. I think we are a much better team with a (healthy) Webb. That said, I don't think he's perfect. The drug suspension frusterated me, and I don't like the lying under oath. His interviews can be controversial, but I think that's because he's a very emotional person who has every word examined under a microphone. Overall, he's human, and makes mistakes like the rest of us. He just happens to be an incredibly gifted athlete!! Go kings!

Actually, I think very few if any people consider him a hero. Many people who defend Webber tend to agree with the views you expressed.

 

[thedofd]

Is this where we come to be banned? Personally, I didn't think the original post had much to do with the Kings in the first place, except that it involved a Kings player. Webber has tons of money so naturally he would be involved in business opportunities. I'm only concerned with how he plays on the court, acts in the locker room, and what he says to the media regarding the Kings.As for the "haters" vs the "mods" I guess my sympathy is with the "haters" because they always risk the possiblity of banishment from Kingdom for their opinions. And I have no problem with anti-webber rants. Just like the Bibby has no defense arguments, and Peja is soft stuff. As long as the negativity is not from trollers, then I just consider it normal venting

It's been really interesting and enlightening to read the responses to this story. I posted the article simply because I thought, as a Kings fans, it was mildly interesting. I didn't realize that it would open an entire discussion about whether Webber's a saint or the antichrist, altruistic or self-promoting, etc. Amazing to see the passion - positive and negative - people have about this guy.

Now, at the risk of getting still more people banned, these two words:


Joe Kleine.

P.S.: I'm glad I didn't post the story about the Maloofs getting together with Hugh Hefner to open a Playboy Club in the new 40-story tower they're building in Las Vegas. Goodness knows what kind of s*** that would have stirred up.

 

[Evilmav2]

So CWebb has the necessary acumen to succeed in the cuthroat business world? Somehow that doesn't much surprise me. hehehe...

 

[NME]

P.S.: I'm glad I didn't post the story about the Maloofs getting together with Hugh Hefner to open a Playboy Club in the new 40-story tower they're building in Las Vegas. Goodness knows what kind of s*** that would have stirred up.

No, that's a different forum where the Maloofs are the antichrist(s). Here, it's clearly Webber.