Sarah Jessica Parker's going to be on the Knicks roster? Who do we cut to make room for her?

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by PresIke:

Not only that, what some fail to understand is that this is a black owned business started by a young man who's trying to be successful without exploiting his fanbase and parents from low-income communities who now have an alternative that kids like and they can afford. If you care about modeling black owned businesses for the youth of today/tomorrow, then Marbury should get his hat tipped to him. It sure is a financial risk, and he could have just gotten a basic deal with some other company and gave two cares about starting his shoe company.

Steve and Barry's is a Black based business? I could be wrong but I think they're Jewish.

Do you know Sarah jessica Parker seems tro have the same gig going for them in their women's department?

He saw an idea where he could earn money but also help people. Why some seem so interested in ridiculing this says quite a bit about who you are as a person, IMHO, or your level of ignorance which I hope you think about.

What is the level of a person's ignorance when they can't get the difference between ridiculing the person's approach to the venture as opposed to the venture itself?

I was recently in a S&B's and heard Marbury's promotional spots juxtaposed with Sarah jessica Parker's and they are nothing alike. She spoke of her personal involvement in the design and how much of herself is in it. There's nothing about changing the world or battling daemons.

Where is all the inflated hype about Sarah Jessica here? Is she less of a world changer, or just less self-aggrandizing in her efforts?

Marbury is part owner of the Starbury line so yes, he is an owner:
http://www.thatscrispy.com/index/news-app/story.2155/title.starbury-sneakers-a-new-movement-in-style

His signature shoes and clothing line, called Starbury, (which he has an ownership stake in) are designed to fit just about any budget.

Do you honestly think that because you saw one advertisement in Steve & Barry's that didn't mention the things related to Marbury's reasoning for doing what he is doing, that this is enough evidence to suggest it's not genuine? Really. Why don't you go check the literature, whether it be articles, and interviews by jounalists, or stories posted directly on his company's website that clearly point to his background and interest in helping provide an alternative to Nike's, etc. for parents to get their kids. I find it interesting that you are so comfortable speaking for someone else when you really have no idea what you are saying. For you to spend so much energy questioning Marbury's intentions based on very little, if at all, sound evidence is quite disappointing to hear and read.

Is Sarah-Jessica Parker's line based on the same philosophy? I have heard nothing, nor am I talking about her. We are talking specifically about Marbury's shoe company and what it is trying to provide an alternative to. This argument you are trying to make makes no sense at all. We're talking about providing cheap, cool sneakers for kids. Is that Sarah Jessica Parker's purpose? Not that I am aware of.

As for "ridiculing the approach" for the veture I don't believe I commented on that, but what exactly is it that you are ridiculing? Where has he been "self-aggrandizing?" And even if so, does that really take away from the actual act of doing it. You have a problem with the way he speaks, and some of you his grammar, sentence structure, whatever...I'd challenge you and others to consider WHY that is so important to you, why you are so obsessed with it and how this has anything to do with the actual company and its goal.

Pres, this is a good basis for a conversation, but I've put more into it today than it's worth, and I don't want to do the same tomorrow. Feel free to tuck it away for another day and throw it back at me next time.

Thanks for keeping me honest but you are a BS artist in this circumstance my friend. First of all in this quote

you accused people of suggesting Marbury's shoe gig is "bad" even though you had to admit no one actually said anything along those lines.

Then you tell me, inside a thread devoted to bashing Isles for views he posted on another board, that threads run afoul when haters don't accept lovers' opinions. Oh the hypocrisy.

What does one have to do with the other. Are you saying I don't accept your views. I don't understand the point. People do suggest Marb's shoe gig is a bad thing whether you want to admit it or not. "Do they come out and say I think the shoe thing is bad?" no. Is every Marbury shoe gig post torn apart by a few people? yes.

As for this part of your post:

Bip, on some occassions you're my favorite poster on this board, but in the context of this conversation, who cares about your views? Our exchange ensued because you accused people of suggesting Marbury's shoe gig is "bad" even though you had to admit no one actually said anything along those lines.

Then you tell me, inside a thread devoted to bashing Isles for views he posted on another board, that threads run afoul when haters don't accept lovers' opinions. Oh the hypocrisy.

You want another example of you trying to play it both ways? How about when I first arrived here criticizing Marbury and you told me that while you couldn't disagree with my criticisms my vocal dissent against him was tantamount to booing Patrick and and Allan - IOW, it was all part of a continuum of fans who blame everything on the best player on the team. (Opposed to the others who blamed it all on Lenny and Shandon?) That's having it both ways in and of itself, but 6 months later when Marbury is dragging his feet against Brown I find you excoriating others for not protesting as a means to hold the players (not the least of which, Marbury) accountable. "Where are our standards?" you cried.

It's not that big a deal bip, it doesn't mean you're not a good poster, but you as much as anyone else need to be "kept honest". It wouldn't be a discussion board if we didn't discuss, and that includes Marbury's messianic quest.

Listen, the same silencing tactic has been in effect since Marbury arrived here.

"how can you criticize him, he's our best player!"

"you can't criticize his ball-hogging, he's the only one on the team who can score!"

"you can't criticize his TOs, he's too tired cuz he has to do everything himself!"

"don't criticize him for F'ing off Lenny, he's a senile old bastard. this is Steph's team, just set him free!"

"how dare you suggest Steph might be breaking down, he's one of the most durable players in the league!"

"if you don't know the significance of 20 and 8 you're an idiot"

"he's right, he IS the BEST point guard and I applaud him for saying it. This is just more baseless hate!"

"Kurt Thomas should get his old ass out of town. Isiah should cut him for yelling at Steph!"

"Steph might not be a leader but don't ever criticize his effort!"

"anyone who supports Larry Brown over Steph is not a knicks fan!"

"steph hasn't lost a step, this is just more hate, hate, hate!"

And on and on.

As for the Marbury thing you are twisting it again. The point was not that you can't criticize Marbury. I do it all the time. I agree with many of your posts and have often echoed your views on the topic a million times. My problem with what was happening a couple years ago is that half the board was blaming LB for everything, half the board was blaming STeph. The half blaming LB were wrong and the half blaming Steph were wrong. I had one half of the board calling me a Larry lover and one calling me a Marbs lover. Why because the board chose sides, the board chose favorites and the board scapegoated. Some in the middle just said they were both idiots and both dragged our team down. To you that is playing both sides of the fence. Our whole disagreement stemmed from one post in which it was suggested that we boo Steph and was 45 pages of BLAMING(Not criticicizing but blaming) STeph for our problems when I thought the problem was Steph, LB, Zeke etc. To me that's far different from criticizing a guys actions.

The season before that it was the "let's boo Steph" brigade. Although I think Marbs was hurting our team, so was everyone else on the squad. TT wasn't playing hard. Sweetney was fat. Jamal played no defense etc. etc. Why was it that fans felt to take their ire out on one player. That I dont' agree with. If you are going to take your ire out and boo someone you would be better served booing the damn GM that brought the unit together not searching for one player scapegoat.Using one single player as a scapegoat like we did with Allan Houston is ridiculous in my view. Once again, two years later I objected to the scapegoating, not any individual criticism of his strengths and weaknesses. But since you can't stand it when anyone defends the guy at all, you can't see a difference.

If you think I'm trying to silence you than get over yourself guy. You seem to have a similar victim complex to that of the guy you think I won't criticize. I pointed out that it's weird how the shoe topic always gets drawn down. You felt I was attacking you. Voice your opinion. Who cares. I just find it odd that some find the need to click onto every post about the shoe subject and tear it apart never once varying their rhetoric even the topic of the post may be vastly different than the one before. I would think you could take a break on one of them and then come back later. I just find it amazing that's all. But just like I don't come to get an opinion from MS on Jamal I wouldn't come to you for an opinion on Steph. Whether he shot one of his teammates to prevent them from going in for a game winning layup or saved an old lady from a burning fire, I already know you would come onto either post discussing his messianic complex and accusing those that criticize his shooting of his teammate and compliment his saving of the old lady of playing both sides of the fence. No, just being fair and honest with the topic that is being discussed at the time. Sorry if I defend the guy in one context and blast him in another. I know in your world that should not be allowed. Hate everything he does, or love everything. Never take the individual topic into account. It always must boil down to hater vs. lover.

Next time I argue with you about Steph but defend you on racial topics you can accuse me of playing both sides of the fence when it comes to you as well.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 18-07-2007 07:53 AM]

Posted by BasketballJones:

^ LOL. I don't remember anyone ever calling you a "Marbs lover". You were a committed Larry Lover back then. It is only recently that you became a Marbs Lover.

[Edited by - basketballjones on 07-18-2007 09:08]

I hate you

Its got to be the shoes. :)

BlueSeats, i think people do make out this Starbury shoe thing to be bad. mixed in with your argument with Bip, there's Isles implying that steph's only doing it for tax breaks (an absolutely ridiculous argument), or that he just wants to tap the money in the inner-city market. i remember threads when the Starbury line was first news calling the shoes crap, saying they were made in sweatshops, etc. basically, there are absolutely those out there who argue that steph is doing this as a self-serving venture where boosting his PR and making money are the main goals, not the other stuff he himself claims. were any of those the kinds of criticisms that would qualify as "suggesting Marbury's shoe gig is 'bad'"?

i don't want to put words in your mouth, but my impression is that you're of the group saying "it's not charity like they claim, but it is definitely a good thing." plenty of reasonable posters agree, but there are definitely more intense critics than that of the Starbury stuff. defending steph in this enterprise isn't just facing straw boogey men.

Posted by Masterplan:

BlueSeats, i think people do make out this Starbury shoe thing to be bad. mixed in with your argument with Bip, there's Isles implying that steph's only doing it for tax breaks (an absolutely ridiculous argument), or that he just wants to tap the money in the inner-city market. i remember threads when the Starbury line was first news calling the shoes crap, saying they were made in sweatshops, etc. basically, there are absolutely those out there who argue that steph is doing this as a self-serving venture where boosting his PR and making money are the main goals, not the other stuff he himself claims. were any of those the kinds of criticisms that would qualify as "suggesting Marbury's shoe gig is 'bad'"?

i don't want to put words in your mouth, but my impression is that you're of the group saying "it's not charity like they claim, but it is definitely a good thing." plenty of reasonable posters agree, but there are definitely more intense critics than that of the Starbury stuff. defending steph in this enterprise isn't just facing straw boogey men.

Master, it's simple, saying this is more business than charity is not the same as saying this is bad. I'm okay with capitalism. Furthermore, saying that some of the stuff that comes out of Steph's mouth is mind numbing is also not the same as saying the shoe gig is bad.

What is really the case is that people are telling us that saying this isn't charity, or saying Steph is mind numbing, is what's bad.

There are at least three distinct notions at play here: Steph and all he entails; the Starbury merchandise business; and charity. All we are doing is having some fun discussing where these three entities diverge, run parallel, or intersect, but some people get so bent out of shape if it's not all lumped together and exalted to the same degree as, say, players who foot $40M out f pocket to build a hospital and the like.

Is it okay if we break things down into components and look at them in context or isn't it?

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Bippity10:

Thanks for keeping me honest but you are a BS artist in this circumstance my friend. First of all in this quote

you accused people of suggesting Marbury's shoe gig is "bad" even though you had to admit no one actually said anything along those lines.

Then you tell me, inside a thread devoted to bashing Isles for views he posted on another board, that threads run afoul when haters don't accept lovers' opinions. Oh the hypocrisy.

What does one have to do with the other. Are you saying I don't accept your views. I don't understand the point. People do suggest Marb's shoe gig is a bad thing whether you want to admit it or not. "Do they come out and say I think the shoe thing is bad?" no. Is every Marbury shoe gig post torn apart by a few people? yes.

As for this part of your post:

Bip, on some occassions you're my favorite poster on this board, but in the context of this conversation, who cares about your views? Our exchange ensued because you accused people of suggesting Marbury's shoe gig is "bad" even though you had to admit no one actually said anything along those lines.

Then you tell me, inside a thread devoted to bashing Isles for views he posted on another board, that threads run afoul when haters don't accept lovers' opinions. Oh the hypocrisy.

You want another example of you trying to play it both ways? How about when I first arrived here criticizing Marbury and you told me that while you couldn't disagree with my criticisms my vocal dissent against him was tantamount to booing Patrick and and Allan - IOW, it was all part of a continuum of fans who blame everything on the best player on the team. (Opposed to the others who blamed it all on Lenny and Shandon?) That's having it both ways in and of itself, but 6 months later when Marbury is dragging his feet against Brown I find you excoriating others for not protesting as a means to hold the players (not the least of which, Marbury) accountable. "Where are our standards?" you cried.

It's not that big a deal bip, it doesn't mean you're not a good poster, but you as much as anyone else need to be "kept honest". It wouldn't be a discussion board if we didn't discuss, and that includes Marbury's messianic quest.

Listen, the same silencing tactic has been in effect since Marbury arrived here.

"how can you criticize him, he's our best player!"

"you can't criticize his ball-hogging, he's the only one on the team who can score!"

"you can't criticize his TOs, he's too tired cuz he has to do everything himself!"

"don't criticize him for F'ing off Lenny, he's a senile old bastard. this is Steph's team, just set him free!"

"how dare you suggest Steph might be breaking down, he's one of the most durable players in the league!"

"if you don't know the significance of 20 and 8 you're an idiot"

"he's right, he IS the BEST point guard and I applaud him for saying it. This is just more baseless hate!"

"Kurt Thomas should get his old ass out of town. Isiah should cut him for yelling at Steph!"

"Steph might not be a leader but don't ever criticize his effort!"

"anyone who supports Larry Brown over Steph is not a knicks fan!"

"steph hasn't lost a step, this is just more hate, hate, hate!"

And on and on.

As for the Marbury thing you are twisting it again. The point was not that you can't criticize Marbury. I do it all the time. I agree with many of your posts and have often echoed your views on the topic a million times. My problem with what was happening a couple years ago is that half the board was blaming LB for everything, half the board was blaming STeph. The half blaming LB were wrong and the half blaming Steph were wrong. I had one half of the board calling me a Larry lover and one calling me a Marbs lover. Why because the board chose sides, the board chose favorites and the board scapegoated. Some in the middle just said they were both idiots and both dragged our team down. To you that is playing both sides of the fence. Our whole disagreement stemmed from one post in which it was suggested that we boo Steph and was 45 pages of BLAMING(Not criticicizing but blaming) STeph for our problems when I thought the problem was Steph, LB, Zeke etc. To me that's far different from criticizing a guys actions.

The season before that it was the "let's boo Steph" brigade. Although I think Marbs was hurting our team, so was everyone else on the squad. TT wasn't playing hard. Sweetney was fat. Jamal played no defense etc. etc. Why was it that fans felt to take their ire out on one player. That I dont' agree with. If you are going to take your ire out and boo someone you would be better served booing the damn GM that brought the unit together not searching for one player scapegoat.Using one single player as a scapegoat like we did with Allan Houston is ridiculous in my view. Once again, two years later I objected to the scapegoating, not any individual criticism of his strengths and weaknesses. But since you can't stand it when anyone defends the guy at all, you can't see a difference.

If you think I'm trying to silence you than get over yourself guy. You seem to have a similar victim complex to that of the guy you think I won't criticize. I pointed out that it's weird how the shoe topic always gets drawn down. You felt I was attacking you. Voice your opinion. Who cares. I just find it odd that some find the need to click onto every post about the shoe subject and tear it apart never once varying their rhetoric even the topic of the post may be vastly different than the one before. I would think you could take a break on one of them and then come back later. I just find it amazing that's all. But just like I don't come to get an opinion from MS on Jamal I wouldn't come to you for an opinion on Steph. Whether he shot one of his teammates to prevent them from going in for a game winning layup or saved an old lady from a burning fire, I already know you would come onto either post discussing his messianic complex and accusing those that criticize his shooting of his teammate and compliment his saving of the old lady of playing both sides of the fence. No, just being fair and honest with the topic that is being discussed at the time. Sorry if I defend the guy in one context and blast him in another. I know in your world that should not be allowed. Hate everything he does, or love everything. Never take the individual topic into account. It always must boil down to hater vs. lover.

Next time I argue with you about Steph but defend you on racial topics you can accuse me of playing both sides of the fence when it comes to you as well.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 18-07-2007 07:53 AM]

I have no idea what your last line means, and the rest is just defensive high drama.

I'm not going to debate who said what in the past until we have a search function, But largely what you've always tried to assert with me, as you do now, is that all I've ever blamed is Marbury, when anybody who's read me knows I'm extremely critical of Dolan and particularly Isiah's management style. Marbury isn't the only one of his kind here, but he has, because of his relationship with Isiah, carried a disproportionate amount of power and media attention, and that is why he draws more ire than others. He's been put into an advantaged role of leadership which he's not deserved, and which I believe has been a destructive influence on the team for the better part of his stay. I really don't think you can discuss the knicks in most facets without consideration of Marbury so long as he is as vocal and prevalent as he's been. Certainly not while he's in a leadership role, fighting with coaches and teammates, starting at PG, featured in legal suits against management, and going on world tour crusades.

He certainly doesn't deserve "all the blame," but nor does anyone assign that, so playing that card just another straw man used to deflect from the criticism that may indeed be warranted.

Now, I'm not accusing you of trying to shut down criticism of Marbury, but in this conversation I believe you pandered a bit to that group, probably to bolster your own esteem, and in the process you mischaracterized people's criticisms as turning his shoe gig into "something bad". All this drama is a result of you're unwillingness to get that. Repeatedly I asked you to evidence the criticism you object to and you couldn't produce, so the whole thing looks to my eyes as grandstanding.

To put it in Marbury's own words:

"My shoe?" Marbury replied. "It's not because of my shoe."

I look forward to your bitter retort.

Blueseats I don't know if you don't get it or just want to continue the roundabout for the entertainment value. When people start a post I comment on what they are discussing. I don't turn a post on who should start into an opportunity to talk about how bad Jamal is. If someone asks who is going to feed the post I don't use it as an opportunity to tell the world how selfish Steph is. I'm not saying you do, I'm saying it happens and I think it's ridiculous and have no problem commenting on it.

This goes on with STeph all the time. If we are talking about what he says or his lack of leadership I understand and appreciate your opinion and everyone that feels Steph is not a leader. If he says something stupid during his marketing campaign I'm on board with all the jokes everyone makes and find them quite funny. I also have no problem chiming in. But like happened the other day a few of us are discussing how cool it is to see an athlete actually putting their face on an inexpensive item. We joked about the shoes we wore as kids when we were poor and wished we had Starbury's. And like clockwork a group(not saying you) but a group comes in screaming about how Marbs is selfish, it's not a movement, why do you fall for this blah, blah, blah. In my head I'm just saying give it a rest. Okay, we get it, you don't like Marbs. I don't like the guy. I think his marketing campaign is as comical as you. I still like the shoes and could care less about how selfish he is. I like the concept. Not saying you don't like the concept. Just asking if we can discuss that without Marb's personality being thrown in all the time. I know you have a victim complex, so let me make it clear, I'm not saying that you can't make fun of Marbs if he does something stupid. I'm not saying you can't criticize the campaing.. My annoyance with this is not because of this thread or any particular thread, it's the topic as a whole. It simply cannot be discussed in a good light ever.

Marbs is self aggrandizing. Marbs is selfish. Marbs is not a leader. Marbs from what I know of him can be a jerk. Marbs has hurt the Knicks with his attitude. Marbs has killed 3 coaches. Marbs marketing campaign is comical at times. Marbs should close his mouth. I still have no problem giving him credit when it comes to the shoes.

As for the search feature. WE don't need the search feature. I'm right here in front of you. If you don't understand my opinion on a topic, just friggin ask it. If I'm not clear, challenge me. What's the fear?

That being said, in this case I feel he is way off line. Once again as a person that grew up poor(but have money now thankfully) I would have loved to see a player like Marbs step up and do this. It would be a hell of a lot more peaceful going to school with Marbury's on than my old buddies. While I do understand being annoyed by the fact that this is called charity, I don't understand why such a good thing is being turned into something bad. It doesn't make sense to me. Give the guy a break. I have never been a big Marbs fan, as a matter of fact as an oncourt personality I can't stand him, but if you are going to be fair, be fair. This shoe thing, is a good thing.

Once again. Not a Marbs fan at all. I understand the comments about the marketing. I understand the jokes etc. But the overall theme of the shoe campaign is what I dont' get. Why can it not be discussed ever in a positive manner? To me, despite it's flaws there is a lot more good than bad in this circumstance. Thinking out loud guy. But it doesn't surprise me that you would take offense to me saying this.