Bini Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 Dodged that bullet! Sugar Daddies dot Com, really? Wow. Quote
Backroads Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 I'm in the wrong section of the state! I must contact those a little further to the south for proper understanding. Quote
pam Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 Here's the article:Sugar House declines dating site's $1.35M offer to change name | ksl.com Quote
selek Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 Now?Now can I go all "medieval" on them? Quote
pam Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 Now?Now can I go all "medieval" on them? Will it cause trouble in the kingdom? Quote
selek Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 Will it cause trouble in the kingdom? "The peasants are revolting!""Yes, my Lord. But now they're rebelling!" Quote
pam Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 Ahem...address me as my lady..not my Lord. Quote
Bini Posted February 22, 2013 Author Report Posted February 22, 2013 Seriously you hadn't heard? It's been highlighted on local news for awhile. Ha! Quote
pam Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 Seriously you hadn't heard? It's been highlighted on local news for awhile. Ha! Not everyone is local to have heard local news. Not even I had heard it and I am local. Quote
Wingnut Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 How generous of the website to have offered to change the name of the city to a freakin' dot-com?? Quote
selek Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 I am appalled at 1) the sheer effrontery of it, and 2) that they had to actually consider it before bouncing them out of town on their heads. Quote
pam Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 I am appalled at 1) the sheer effrontery of it, and 2) that they had to actually consider it before bouncing them out of town on their heads. I kind of had it pictured like this.Council: We have an offer to pay us a large amount of money to change the name of our city to sugardaddy.com. All in favor raise your hands. (none) All opposed (all hands raised)Okay we're done Quote
john doe Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 And yet look at all the free publicity that company got from making an offer they knew would be refused, and now we're still talking about it. It was a great free publicity stunt, and now there will be a few more old rich guys and young gold digger chicks checking out their site from all that free advertising. Quote
selek Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 Well, money is money!Yeah- but $1.35 million? For ten years? The article specified that the requirement required that all of the streetsigns, letterhead, etc. would need to be changed and that a ceremony presenting them with a key to the city would be required.I seriously doubt the $1.35 mil would cover the costs the town would be incurring, let alone making it "worth their while".Call me unsubtle, but I've got very specific ideas about where they could put said key.I kind of had it pictured like this.Council: We have an offer to pay us a large amount of money to change the name of our city to sugardaddy.com. All in favor raise your hands. (none) All opposed (all hands raised)Okay we're done I am inclined to agree- but that's still three whole minutes that could've been spent on something more relevant: like outlawing nuclear weapons inside city limits.And yet look at all the free publicity that company got from making an offer they knew would be refused, and now we're still talking about it. It was a great free publicity stunt, and now there will be a few more old rich guys and young gold digger chicks checking out their site from all that free advertising.And I think this is the fundamental truth of the matter.It was never a serious offer- only a cheap publicity stunt- and a waste of taxpayer time and money to even consider.Of course, if you're going to exploit women for sex, why not exploit the taxpayer, too.Heck, Congress does it- why not sugardaddy.com? Quote
Vort Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 Call me unsubtle, but I've got very specific ideas about where they could put said key.Careful. You might give them ideas that they will post on their site. Quote
Wingnut Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 I am inclined to agree- but that's still three whole minutes that could've been spent on something more relevant: like outlawing nuclear weapons inside city limits.Are you sure that's relevant to Sugar House? Quote
Bini Posted February 22, 2013 Author Report Posted February 22, 2013 I just got a good chuckle out of it. I'm glad the Sugar House residents don't have to suffer it. Quote
NeuroTypical Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 “I can't imagine anybody would take this seriously.”–Soren SimonsenCool - I sometimes struggle with a tendency to think of city councilmembers negatively. This quote helps me be more charitable towards them. Quote
Dravin Posted February 22, 2013 Report Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Are you sure that's relevant to Sugar House?I think the idea is that as irrelevant as the issue of nuclear weapons is, the issue of changing the name of the city to the website's is even less so. Edited February 22, 2013 by Dravin Quote
kartvines Posted March 7, 2013 Report Posted March 7, 2013 Having been born in Sugarhouse I think it would have been a horrible thing to do, it was bad enough that when I was born there the town was only know for was it's prison, but I now understand it is a upscale community, compaired to how it was in the late 40's Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.