EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Interwebz'its... Oh how we talk.... and talk.... and
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Interwebz'its... Oh how we talk.... and talk.... and - Page 4

post #91 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

1)  It's funny that you refuse to directly answer the questions I had asked.  It does seem you are in favor of car-free zones, and are in favor of wiping out whole cities little by little in ways that aren't economically justified...but don't quite want to admit it. 

 

2)  Nope, I sure said exactly that.  In the US -- and given all the nitpicking on here, yeah, I should have qualified the statement,  and included all sorts of disclaimers, to note the US context -- most public transit isn't economically justifiable.  When people talk about it, the main question is, How much money are they talking about wasting?  You have a few large cities where it works, and the Boston/NYC/DC corridor and a couple similar.  And, you have people all sorts of other places looking to waste huge sums of money, such as high-speed rail in CA.  In some cases they don't even pretend that the numbers work, such as in CA where pretty much everyone admits that high speed rail is a huge boondoggle, but some people want to do it anyway.

 

IF you require that a project not be a boondoggle good at providing union jobs, and actually make economic sense, you're basically killing most proposals, right there.  In CA terms, no high speed rail; MAYBE light rail to replace some of LA's dedicated bus lanes, which is a much less grandiose thing and one that would make economic sense.  ASSUMING that LA can do it without wasting so much money that the efficiency gains from the light rail aren't overshadowed by the waste and corruption that tends to go with these things. 

 

1. I support gradual urban redevelopment run by city councils. Notice that I've never, ever proposed programs run by the federal government or forced implementation in areas where it's not viable. Also, I've never mentioned high-speed rail (until now). That's you, again, arguing about something I've never mentioned.

2. Thanks for the clarification. For a moment there, it looked like you were saying two completely opposite things.

Edit: punctuation error.
Edited by CerebralVortex - 6/7/13 at 8:01am
post #92 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post



As I said up above, that's why I stick to substantive points in terms of dialogue.  I'd tell someone at a party, face to face, who'd tried to use some gaybashing reference towards someone they disagreed with that it was a cheap shot.  That you'd think to make that type of reference online does tell me something about your world.

Hmmmm. Missed the gay bashing in any of the threads. Myself, any use of the word 'fag' beyond a bundle of sticks, I push the little flag thingy I've told you about. Yes. I do. I have. A couple of times.

Anyhow, can you tell us your best more or less family safe joke?

Mine? So a seal walks into a bar in Ottawa and asks for a Canadian Club.....
post #93 of 113

Reminder, lets keep it light. 

biggrin.gif

post #94 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Hmmmm. Missed the gay bashing in any of the threads. Myself, any use of the word 'fag' beyond a bundle of sticks, I push the little flag thingy I've told you about. Yes. I do. I have. A couple of times.
...

You are being completely disingenuous.  There is a reference to gay-bashing made by CV just up above, in this thread.  The type of smear in question is a technique often resorted to by people who are looking to dodge ideas and simply blow smoke and attack another person instead.

 

And yeah, if someone at a party was talking, say, taxes, or whether CA really does need one or two high-speed rail lines, and someone said to another "You remind me of some gay-bashers I saw on TV," when the conversation had NOTHING to do with that, yeah, I'd tell the person it was a cheap shot.  Other people might try to say they'd missed the gay-bashing reference said right in front of them, and that could tell us something about them, too.

post #95 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

Reminder, lets keep it light. 

biggrin.gif

 

Cool, Seal jokes......... I'll play

 

A police officer sees a man driving around with a pickup truck full of seals. He pulls the guy over and says...
"You can't drive around with seals in this town! Take them to the zoo immediately."
The guy says "OK"... and drives away.
 

 

The next day, the officer sees the guy still driving around with the truck full of seals, and they're all wearing sun glasses. He pulls the guy over and demands...
"I thought I told you to take these seals to the zoo yesterday?"
The guy replies...
"I did . . . today I'm taking them to the beach!"

 

post #96 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

No, I don't literally think you are beating up on anyone, but what you are doing is actually a good example of internet dialogue.  It is a subtle way of trying to attack and demean a person, rather than having an exchange of views.  You're trying to link me by comparison to someone who would think it's fun to gay-bash, but in a way that gives you plausible deniability of "hey, I'm only joking."  But, like other types of smears, like the personal attacks on here trying to suggest I'm a conspiracy theorist, the stain of that kind of attack can linger.  So, you've engaged in some cheap personal attacks, but in a somewhat more clever way than simply calling me an insect or conspiracy theorist.

 

Congrats on being slightly more clever, but in a self-congratulatory, somewhat nasty way.

 

What you DIDN'T do is actually squarely address the fact that, yeah, you are pushing a type of central planning with the aim of broad, sweeping rework of cities, including huge new investment in public transit that as noted, in the US will almost never pay for itself. 

 

What you also didn't do is take the chance to actually have a productive dialogue.  I noted myself that public expenditures can vary widely in quality and effect.  Because the thread that preceded this one related to fitness, I'd used the example of skateparks, which actually can be fairly large infrastructure projects.  An honest dialogue might say, why do so many public dollars get wasted -- be it on transit boondoggles, like CA is doing, or on public recreation projects that are poorly done, while some people manage to get it right? 

 

Your posting record, which rather than taking a productive turn, devolved into gay-bashing references, suggests to me that you don't particularly really even care about the answer. 

 

As I said up above, that's why I stick to substantive points in terms of dialogue.  I'd tell someone at a party, face to face, who'd tried to use some gaybashing reference towards someone they disagreed with that it was a cheap shot.  That you'd think to make that type of reference online does tell me something about your world.

 

And again, you misinterpret my writing. I'm not saying you're a gay basher. I'm saying you picked a fight with someone you thought would be an easy target, but your target turned out to be a much better fighter than you expected. So no, as much as your imagination would like to believe, I'm not trying to use witty slander. I'm using a straight-up analogy of a guy who picked a fight and lost. It has nothing to do with sexuality or your views on the sexuality of others.

I tried to have a constructive dialogue in the other thread, but you derailed it when you wilfully misinterpreted my posts, accused me of basically proposing widespread tyranny and destruction, and went off on a tangent about atrocities in Eastern Europe. I actually tried to be civil about it at first, as opposed to some of the people who flat out laughed in your face (figuratively speaking). But, you just kept going on and on about stuff that was not only of no relevance to the original subject but also wildly inaccurate.

And once again, I'll remind you that I truly, honestly don't believe you're a conspiracy theorist. Instead, I think you're the type of person who, as the British would say, could start a fight in a phone box.
post #97 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post

 

And again, you misinterpret my writing. I'm not saying you're a gay basher...

If you aren't trying to say someone is a gay basher, or to link them on an emotional level with nasty behavior like gay bashing, don't say they remind you of two guys trying to beat up drag queens.

 

Real simple.

post #98 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

If you aren't trying to say someone is a gay basher, or to link them on an emotional level with nasty behavior like gay bashing, don't say they remind you of two guys trying to beat up drag queens.

 

Real simple.

 

It was one guy trying to beat up two guys who he thought were drag queens. The only reason that I mention drag queens and cage fighters is because it better explains the dramatic turn that the altercation took.

If I didn't mention drag queens, then the story is just that a guy tried to pick a fight with two cage fighters and lost. And in that case, it's completely worthless as an analogy to what's going on here.
post #99 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post

 

It was one guy trying to beat up two guys who he thought were drag queens. The only reason that I mention drag queens and cage fighters is because it better explains the dramatic turn that the altercation took.

If I didn't mention drag queens, then the story is just that a guy tried to pick a fight with two cage fighters and lost. And in that case, it's completely worthless as an analogy to what's going on here.

Real simple answer:  use another analogy.  But, another analogy wouldn't have had the same benefit of a negative, smearing association with deplorable behavior.

 

As it is, you've just said, seemingly, that you only support economically viable urban redevelopment, which tends to suggest you support virtually no new mass transit in the US (exceptions being things like light rail replacing bus lines in LA and such).  Since, as we know, virtually no mass transit in the US pays for itself.  So, I wouldn't even pat yourself too much on the back as regards the discussion on either transit or fitness.

 

And you didn't even take the chance to have a substantive dialogue even on wise versus unwise public spending -- why Oregon and CT have been efficient in some cases as regards fitness infrastructure, for instance, while other places who have spent as much have wasted their money.  Instead, you went with the reference to gay-bashing.  So I wouldn't pat yourself on the back as to tone or course of dialogue or looking to start fights, either. 

post #100 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

...

 

And you didn't even take the chance to have a substantive dialogue even on wise versus unwise public spending -- why Oregon and CT have been efficient in some cases as regards fitness infrastructure, for instance,...

Here's a hint, though:  those that are more successful in this regard tend to use the best design/build firms in the country, rather than award local contracts, and try to ensure that the infrastructure answers athletic needs in terms of the way it's done.  Local workers and contractors do still get utilized, but the successful projects aren't treated as  jobs projects. 

post #101 of 113

post #102 of 113
post #103 of 113
hopmad.gif
hissyfit.gif
Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif
post #104 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

Real simple answer:  use another analogy.  But, another analogy wouldn't have had the same benefit of a negative, smearing association with deplorable behavior.

 

As it is, you've just said, seemingly, that you only support economically viable urban redevelopment, which tends to suggest you support virtually no new mass transit in the US (exceptions being things like light rail replacing bus lines in LA and such).  Since, as we know, virtually no mass transit in the US pays for itself.  So, I wouldn't even pat yourself too much on the back as regards the discussion on either transit or fitness.

 

And you didn't even take the chance to have a substantive dialogue even on wise versus unwise public spending -- why Oregon and CT have been efficient in some cases as regards fitness infrastructure, for instance, while other places who have spent as much have wasted their money.  Instead, you went with the reference to gay-bashing.  So I wouldn't pat yourself on the back as to tone or course of dialogue or looking to start fights, either. 

 

As I've already said, my analogy was meant purely as an example of a guy picking a fight with the wrong person. Again, I'm not attempting to smear you. The only person trying to smear you is the version of me that your imagination has created.

I'd love to be able to have a civil discussion with you. But, as long as you continue to respond to what you imagine I'm saying rather than what I'm actually saying, then I'm afraid it's simply not possible.

Anyways, I'm off to enjoy the weekend, because there's a strange ball of fire in the sky that no one in Britain has ever seen, and I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts.
post #105 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy View Post

Tog will get back to you on the Cadillac part.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

http://youtu.be/t26M7NDn2QY
 

 

Thanks Tog, now I finally get the Cadillac part.

post #106 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

Ski off?

Better yet, let's include everyone & call it a...

 

"Chinese Downhill!"

post #107 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

Ski off?

 

Highway Star vs Chaos?

post #108 of 113

While this is an excellent skiing discussion, my feeling is it belongs in the Politics and Hot Topics cage fight arena.  I think we'll try Apres ski for now.

post #109 of 113
Isn't there an Existential forum?
Perhaps "Avant" instead of Après?
Marko will be crushed it's not on Humor. Do we even have that anymore?

I think Aptes will do fine.
post #110 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post

 

Might I suggest: Standardizing our heights and weights when discussing gear

Hey did someone dare make fun of me? Listen, this is serious stuff. I am trying to enlighten you jokers with mind-shatteringly brilliant arguments that will revolutionize, well, everything. Be nice or I will drone on until your brain dies about the implications of compression in the highest percentiles.

post #111 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Be nice or I will drone on until your brain dies about the implications of compression in the highest percentiles.

Ha! I already began to postulate on this in post 79. It is the next big (and - relatively - small) thing in ski instruction. Bootfitters have been making a mint claiming that better tuns to one side are because of foot mechanics and selling orthotics and whatnot. Really, are there any women who can't turn just fine in both directions with their own feet? Can you realistically teach femur rotation when the student is just protecting Pistachio from Brazil Nut? Is compression the answer? Will I have poster's remorse, and if so, can it be measured in a statistical sample without contemplating the What Are You Drinking Now thread?
post #112 of 113
Thread Starter 
I was kind of hoping CV and CT would start their own website. Epicsh_tfights.com
post #113 of 113
That one might be even better than Volklskier's epicskisucks.com At least there would be two people talking in an empty room.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Après-Ski
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Interwebz'its... Oh how we talk.... and talk.... and