By the way bistiza, I don't think you understood Ike's question a few pages back. Or maybe I didn't understand it and read too much into it. Either way, here's what I perceived that he was asking, and I'd like you to answer it:
You have made two seemingly competing statements. The first is that you don't think he's karmically cursed because of the fact that he left, but rather the way that he left. Ok, most people agree he could have handled that better. The other is that you aren't just discussing the results from a sports perspective, it's not just about people who are wrapped up in sports a little too much. It's about the economic impact. Also seems to make it a stronger argument. But here's the thing. Unless I'm missing something major, the economic impact on the city of Cleveland of LeBron leaving isn't caused by the way he left. It's caused by the simple fact he's not there anymore and won't draw extra "tourist" traffic into town to watch him play his home games, stay in hotels, eat at restaurants, and buy third-party merchandise branded with his name or image.
Can you explain how the statements that LeBron is a "**** person" because A) he left in a very public way and B) there were economic impacts to his leaving which made it worse - are not opposing arguments? It seems to me that if you are using B as the reasoning to make it significant beyond the fact that people everywhere seem to put a little too much importance on sports much of the time you really aren't just saying the way he left was a problem. It's the fact that he left that was a problem. And I don't think it's fair at all to say that top-tier athletes can never change teams. If it's the economic impact that makes LeBron leaving so bad, so karmically damning, so indicative of being a "**** person," then it really isn't about the way he left, so are you saying he really never had the right to leave?