Chain Stores Invade New York, Not San Francisco
Chain stores have invaded Manhattan and now look to open in other New York City neighborhoods. Meanwhile, San Francisco's planning commission has the power to reject chain retail and restaurants. And they have been using that power.
"At a glance, the junction of Broadway and Steinway Street could be mistaken for any intersection in Midtown. There are bank branches — Commerce, Chase and Bank of America — on three of the corners, and the fourth is home to a Rite Aid drugstore. Nearby are stores usually found in suburban shopping malls." New York City urban planner Jeanne Giordano, explains: 'The tipping point is that it’s happening beyond the obvious places. The boroughs are all going down like bowling pins.' She continues that some New Yorkers are worried that 'it’s getting boring around here.'"
"In contrast, the anti-chain sentiment in San Francisco remains strong. A ballot proposition to require planning review of proposed chain stores or restaurant outlets received about 60 percent of the votes, said Gerardo Sandoval, the city supervisor who sponsored the proposition. He says, 'Our position is: We’re San Francisco; you can do what you want in other cities, but here we are going to protect local neighborhood character.'"
"Lawrence B. Badiner, assistant director of San Francisco's planning commission, explains that a few proposed Starbucks cafes had been rejected by the commission. He says: 'The predominant view in most parts of the city is, ‘We’ve got enough; if we want to go to Starbucks we know where to find one.'"
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Oklahoma's Car Culture Forced to Adapt - Jun 14, 2008
Comparing A Manhattan Landmark With L.A.'s Grand Avenue Project - Jun 19, 2006
The Transformation of a Neighborhood - Jun 24, 2008
Why Isn't Our Campus Downtown? - Jun 23, 2008
An Italian View of U.S. Planning - Jun 20, 2008
You didn't strike a sore nerve..
If you read my response.. I agreed with you on many points, but your statements were all empty accusation without any specific and detailed facts to substantiate your claims.
Since, you're not willing to discuss your committment to your NATIVE city. We could assume you're merely part of the problem, but not willing to be part of the solution. It's easy to complain about a problem, but it takes a bigger and selfless person to commit themselves to be part of solving difficult issues. Since, you're unable to express yourself in lucid, rational, and a logical manner. I'll just assume you're the crazy person who lives down the block. He's always complaining about something, and we always feel sorry for him. He is such a bitter thing. Oh well, San Francisco may not be a perfect city, but I love it.
Ha... ha... looks like I
Ha... ha... looks like I struck a couple raw nerves. However, it seems that some folks in this town just don't take too kindly to criticism about their perfect city. In any event, I stand by what I said.
(By the way, what do you know about how I spend my spare time...?)
Have a nice day.
San Francisco ABSOLUTELY perfect…?
San Francisco ABSOLUTELY perfect…?
I was just waiting for someone to say that. You can’t possibly seriously believe that (especially if you live here). Undoubtedly, SF is in a class of its own among cities in America (which, sadly, is not saying much), but there are some IMperfections. Here are some, to name a few:
1) That nation’s worst homeless problem along with spineless local politicians and officials unwilling to do anything serious about it.
2) Bloated city bureaucracy (my personal pet peeve). There are way too many slovenly city workers who got their jobs-for-life through patronage; this includes the Planning and (especially) the Building Departments. As a resident and homeowner, I can attest to the maddening unresponsiveness of our overpaid City of SF civil servants, way too many of whom just sit at their desks all day long doing God-knows-what...?. For every City worker out in the field actually doing something to improve the quality of life for SF residents, there are four “supervisors” lounging away in their city offices, each drawing six-figure salaries. I could go on here, ad infinitum, but I think you get the idea.
3) Lax or non-existent law enforcement. This starts at the top with an overly soft and ineffective Police Chief (a patronage appointment) and our (elected) “turn-‘em-loose” District Attorney. The recent well-publicised beating of members of the singing group from Yale and subsequent cover-up by City officials is a recent example of this.
4) Dirty, trash-strewn streets, sidewalks, and plazas. This is related to the above (homeless; lazy city workers; lax law enforcement).
5) The nation’s most expensive housing (outside of Manhattan), exacerbating perhaps the nation’s widest social divide between the “haves” and “have-nots.” Any city planner who can afford to buy a house or condo in SF either won the Lotto is on the take. It cost $700,000 minimum to buy a 900-sq.ft. 2-bedroom/1-bath house in a drug and gang-infested neighbourhood in a crappy part of town you wouldn't want to live in (this includes virtually all of that large portion of the city which lies south of I-280… a dreary urban wasteland of crappy-looking little houses, smaller than the boom-boom cars and monster pick-up trucks parked out front).
So for starters, how’s that for an ABSOLUTELY perfect city…?
I’ve lived in SF for the last 5 years (I was also born here and grew up in Palo Alto). I’ve spent most of my adult life, however, in Seattle (where I went to school), NYC-Manhattan, and Miami Beach. I can’t honestly say that I prefer SF to any of these places. As for the closest thing to a prefect city, I would have to go for Vancouver, BC. (not in the US, but just 20 miles from the border). Vancouver is, in fact, the city that San Francisco wants to be; a “perfect” San Francisco, if you like, a San Francisco without the negatives (see my letter to the Editor, “Look to Vancouver,” in the SF CHRONICLE, dated 19 August 2006, page B-4)
Disclosures (as they say in Real Estate): I live in SF and also am a homeowner in SF (Upper Noe Valley/Diamond Heights).
chrisinsobe said:San
chrisinsobe said:
San Francisco ABSOLUTELY perfect…?
I was just waiting for someone to say that. You can’t possibly seriously believe that (especially if you live here). Undoubtedly, SF is in a class of its own among cities in America (which, sadly, is not saying much), but there are some IMperfections. Here are some, to name a few:
MY RESPONSE:
I’m a resident in Twin Peaks in San Francisco.. My greatest complaint are individuals like yourself. You just like to complain about the problems in the community, but you do nothing to contribute back to your community. Let me tell you.. Your ownership of a home doesn’t give you any greater rights than a renter.. By the way, Renters make up 70% of San Francisco
I’m also a resident of San Francisco.. I agree that San Francisco isn’t a perfect city, but I don’t sit in an Ivory Tower or in my house on the hill, and just complain about the problem. Let me tell you.. If you’re idea is helping your community is writing these letters, you’re wrong. Why don’t you try to get involved in your community and try to be part of the solution.
chrisinsobe said:
1) That nation’s worst homeless problem along with spineless local politicians and officials unwilling to do anything serious about it.
MY RESPONSE:
What do you mean spineless politicians? Did you hear about ‘Care not Cash” or “Project Homeless Connect” Did you vote for “Care not Cash”? Have you ever volunteered with “project homeless connect” If not, please don’t complain about the issues. If you’re not willing to commit your own personal time to resolve the problems in your community, you’re only taking space, and you’re not truly committed to this community. By the way.. Who do you think worked to implement these programs? Oh yeah, the spineless politicians and City Officials..
chrisinsobe said:
2) Bloated city bureaucracy (my personal pet peeve). There are way too many slovenly city workers who got their jobs-for-life through patronage; this includes the Planning and (especially) the Building Departments. As a resident and homeowner, I can attest to the maddening unresponsiveness of our overpaid City of SF civil servants, way too many of whom just sit at their desks all day long doing God-knows-what...?. For every City worker out in the field actually doing something to improve the quality of life for SF residents, there are four “supervisors” lounging away in their city offices, each drawing six-figure salaries. I could go on here, ad infinitum, but I think you get the idea.
MY RESPONSE:
I agree the City is extremely bloated, but there are many civil servants who are committed to serving our community. If you’re interested in resolving problems.. Why don’t you try to volunteer with a political organization, local agency or City/County Board? Let me tell you, I can attest to the wonderful response from both the building, fire and police to emergencies in my neighborhood. I once called the Building Department due to illegal construction work in my neighborhood, and the Building responded within the same day. I can go on and on.. My only complain is MUNI and the drivers of buses and light rails because many are e the rudest and laziest individuals in Civil Service.
chrisinsobe said:
3) Lax or non-existent law enforcement. This starts at the top with an overly soft and ineffective Police Chief (a patronage appointment) and our (elected) “turn-‘em-loose” District Attorney. The recent well-publicised beating of members of the singing group from Yale and subsequent cover-up by City officials is a recent example of this.
MY RESPONSE:
What are you talking about? I’ve called the police on one occasion due to a possible break-in at a neighboring house, and they responded with two police cars within five minutes. If you’re referring to the handling of drug related crimes within our City. Can you please provide us the specific data? How can you support this assertion? Do you really know the facts of the Yale assault case? I imagine you’re basing your entire claims on the Chronicle, which isn’t completely accurate.
chrisinsobe said:
4) Dirty, trash-strewn streets, sidewalks, and plazas. This is related to the above (homeless; lazy city workers; lax law enforcement).
MY RESPONSE:
Again.. you’re completely incorrect. In my neighborhood district of the Castro and Noe Valley.. The community has worked with the Eureka Valley Business Association (I’m involved in this group), and Special District was created to hire street cleaners.. They’re also considering security. My question to you.. Do you just sit on the hill and just think about things to complain about, or do you really care about San Francisco. If you did care about it, you should roll up your sleeves, and you would show some civic involvement..
chrisinsobe said:
5) The nation’s most expensive housing (outside of Manhattan), exacerbating perhaps the nation’s widest social divide between the “haves” and “have-nots.” Any city planner who can afford to buy a house or condo in SF either won the Lotto is on the take. It cost $700,000 minimum to buy a 900-sq.ft. 2-bedroom/1-bath house in a drug and gang-infested neighbourhood in a crappy part of town you wouldn't want to live in (this includes virtually all of that large portion of the city which lies south of I-280… a dreary urban wasteland of crappy-looking little houses, smaller than the boom-boom cars and monster pick-up trucks parked out front).
MY RESPONSE:
Yes.. It’s expensive to live here.. You should take a few courses in economics, planning or development?.. Did you know San Francisco has been a built out community for years, and the only option to construct new housing is through in-fill development or redevelopment of industrial sites. The cost of new housing must capture the cost of the land, the cost of construction (which is impacted by state construction code), and other planning environmental regulations. Also, the developer must make a profit. San Francisco isn’t perfect, but there are a many citizens and community groups who are working to make the city a better place. When is the last time you volunteered in the City? When did you go help to plant a tree or clean a park or a beach? When did you volunteer at Project Homeless Connect? If you haven’t been an active member in San Francisco.. You have no right to complain.. In my mind, you’re just taking up space, and you’re not truly a contributing citizen in my mind. You may have been born here, but a TRUE San Franciscan doesn't merely complain about the problem, but tries to work to resolve them. Why don't you return to Seattle!
San Francisco ABSOLUTELY perfect, yes. case closed.
Your weak, biased points are meaningless. Why do you people keep responding to me? You must have no life.
Leave San Francisco and move to someplace mediocre where you belong, like San Diego or Las Vegas.
Goodbye.
Your weak, biased points are meaningless...?
As a resident homeowner who pays an exorbitant amount of $$$ in property taxes to the City and County of San Francisco, it is certainly my right to demand better from city employees and local officials. I own another property of similar value in Miami Beach, pay less than half as much in property tax to Dade County, yet get better in municipal services. Therefore, it seems that there is room for improvement in SF.
Anyhow, it sounds like I struck a raw nerve.
Goodbye to you too, and you're right, I've got better things to do, though I do find these exchanges somewhat amusing.
P.S. I'll live wherever I want to, but for the record, I probably don't like San Diego nor Las Vegas anymore than you seem to. Don't know if it qualifies or not in your mind as "mediocre," but it looks like our next move will be to Berlin (Schöneberg-Nollendorf)... and one doesn't need to be a millionaire to buy property there.
But Miami, and Florida for that matter suck.
So what's your point? I know I live in perfection.
Bureaucracy and corruption are everywhere. Google in "San Diego" and "corruption" and see what you come up with. San Francisco doesn't even hold a candle to to the level of pork barrel corruption as seen in San Diego (Enron by the Sea).
Get used to it.
I know I live in perfection.
I'm happy for you.
Inner Richmond certainly has its charms... my parents lived there when I was born (a couple blocks off Arguello), so, how about that...? I'm a native of your neighborhood. Just had dinner at Clementine's on Clement a few nights ago, as a matter of fact.
Since I also currently reside in SF (at the top of a hill w/a panoramic view of the city and downtown from my deck, no less), I guess that I live in perfection too...!
As for San Diego, I don't know enough to comment (though interesting to read all the comments here about SD). I haven't been there in years and have no interest, really. Sunbelt/Desert cities in the Southwest generally don't interest me. As I said, we're relocating to Berlin-Nollendorf, far more "urban" than anything in America (except, perhaps, Manhattan).
As for Miami Beach, it's a very cool place (in the figurative sense)... was never wild about the rest of Florida, however (read my letter to SF CHRONICLE MAGAZINE on 29 October, 2006, re. Calif. vs. Florida).
Grüße....
Cool.
I agree with you completely.
Good for San Francisco
Most chains add very little value to any neighborhood (okay, with a few exceptions, like Trader Joes, Wild Oats). Especially restaurant chains, which tend to be highly processed, even if they claim to be healthy. I'll take a locally-owned restaurant or cafe any day.
One of the biggest problems with even successful New Urbanist redevelopment in Southern California is the overwhelming presence of retail and restaurant chains. I present as examples: Old Town Pasadena, Paseo Colorado in Pasadena, almost every development in San Diego. Pasadena is adding a lot of fantastic non-chain joints along Colorado Avenue, as they develop the center city, so things are moving in the right direction there.
Is is good for San Francisco?
What about inner-city neighborhoods underserved by retail?
Why is Trader Joe's good but not McDonald's?...Is it because people that look and think like you shop at Trader Joe's but not at McDonald's?
Should the perceptions of a certain class of people be allowed to dictate where everybody can shop?
If chain stores didn't add any value to their surroundings wouldn't they go out of business?
What if a chain is locally-owned? Should it be banned also?
Is it fair to make local citizens pay more to enrich the profits of a select few businessmen... isn't that just back door corporate welfare?
What if all the locally owned stores just plain suck? Where do you turn?
Do these policies in any way contribute to the continuous homogenization of San Francisco as a bipolar city of the transient rich and government dependent poor?
Yes it is good for San Francisco, case closed.
Shut up Ricardo and all your pathetic, hating, anti-San Francisco rhetoric! We all know you hate it here and are looking for ways to cut it down. Why are you here in the first place?
Go back to vapid, superficial, rude San Diego where you belong and leave us alone in the perfect, diverse, heterogeneous Bay Area where things are more enlightened.
You obviously have low standards for what a city should be like.
Wow...touched a nerve I guess
You don't even live in San Francisco...what do you know about it then?
I happen to like this city very much, but there are countless ways it could be better...and the outcome of many of the City's current policy decisions are having the exact opposite effect of their intention (making the City less diverse and welcomning while treating residents like ATMs for the political class).
I do appreciate the irony of someone calling me rude then telling me to get the heck out of some city he's not even a resident of the firstplace...nice touch.
I do live in San Francisco!!!
What are you taking about? I live in the Inner Richmond, two blocks from GG Park. Thanks for making up lies about me for the rest of the audience!
San Francisco is the best city in America and San Diego couldn't even hold a candle to it. This is why you need to leave our wonderful city and move back to mediocre, pathetic, shallow Southern California where you belong.
Nothing to improve in San Francisco, it is ABSOLUTELY perfect!
Did you just move?
Because in an earlier discussion you said you lived in the East Bay. My mistake...but it still doesn't change the fact that you called me rude, yet then demanded I leave the City because I disagree with your viewpoints...who's being rude then?
Perfect City...hmmm...one of Amercia's largest homeless problems, spiking violent crime rates, no middle class, unaffordable home prices, declining public school enrollment...? Absolutely perfect huh?
Absolutely perfect.
Everyplace has homeless, you can thank Ronald Reagan for that. Look at LA or San Diego and get back to me. Ever been to Venice Beach, Skid Row LA, or Downtown San Diego? Much worse than SF.
Violent crime? Hmm, the violent crime rate went down 4% from 2005. No spike there! The crime rate in SF is actually much lower than other cities of the same size across the U.S.
No middle class, look at EVERY city in America, same issue.
Unaffordable homes, because everyone wants to live here.
Declining public school enrollment, I believe San Diego has one off the worst public school systems in America.
You have no point.
Yes, San Francisco is absolutely perfect, case closed. Unless you are the progressive libertarian type (which you appear to be) who would prefer to live in Phoenix, Reno, or Salt Lake City.
2006 Crime is Up
http://www.examiner.com/a-509218~S_F__crime_stats__spin_or_concealment_....
Hmm....violent crime rate is up...but you live in the Richmond so who cares about crime?
Who reads the SF Examiner?
That statistic is from one of the most shady, yellow journalistic publications in the United States.
Get yourself a copy of the Chronicle and then we'll talk...
How very second grade of
How very second grade of you. No answer to SF's problems, just shut up and accept them because other places are worse...nice touch. How about the places that have done things better? Why can't we look to New York on how to deal with crime and homelessness, or Houston for economic mobility, a healthy middle class and the ability to absorb thousands of Katrina refugees, or somewhere outside of CA and Mississippi for improving public schools? There are literally thousands of examples of places that do things better than San Francisco (Chicago for envrionemtal leadership perhaps) and San Fracnisco should look to them for their best practices (and the converse is also true).
Perhaps you should move somewhere a little more ideologically pure (you'd probably be happier on an island by yourself...no one for you to tell to move out there), then you wouldn't have to suffer the horror of living next to us homeonwers with different points of view.
Why do you keep responding?
Leave me alone loser.
And please leave San Francisco to those who appreciate it and realize there is nothing to improve. It is PERFECT! Not to those who whine and complain and are jealous haters.
P.S. - And by the way, Houston is a total dump. Ever been there in the summer time? Nice air quality there as well...
And New York? It has a militant mayoral leadership (Rudy Giulliani and Michael Bloomberg) who literally ship the homeless out of Manhattan (remember what happened at Thomkins Square Park in 1991?). And the crime rates in the Big Apple have decreased dramatically over the past 15 years due to the rapid levels of real estate gentrification taking over most corners of the city. What does San Francisco have to learn from that? Nothing. It's already happening.
You keep responding to me
When did I say that I did not appreciate San Francisco? There are just certain things that could be done better so the City doens't become just a museum piece for tourists (ala Venice or Vienna). Why are you trying to silence my dissent...not a fan of free speech for those you disagree with (you'll fit right in in San Francisco then)?
And yes, I have been to Houston in the summer, but climate and air quality, as with the flat geography, are really things they can't control (San Francisco would have horrendous air qaulity if the winds didn't blow all of our pollution inland to the Central Valley). Houston has done a lot of things right, and they've done a lot of things wrong, we could learn from the good and leave out the bad....that's all.
So please keep responding, I actually believe you should be able to say whatever you want to and voice whatever opinion you may have on this forum...whether you think that rule applies to others is in doubt though.
Don't Be Provoked, Ricardo
Ricardo:
Can't see that he is only trying to provoke you and to toy with you by making absurd, hostile statements like:
"Leave me alone loser. And please leave San Francisco to those who appreciate it and realize there is nothing to improve. It is PERFECT!"
No one could really believe that. He is just trying to keep the argument going endlessly.
Don't play into his hands by responding. You are just helping him to jam up the board with his vacuous bickering.
(No doubt, he will make a similar sort of response to this post, and of course, I won't reply.)
Charles Siegel
Listen to Charles
And silence the dissent!!!
Yep.
I like responding to him, as it gets him all up in arms and forthing at the mouth. I think it's fun as he really can't answer any of the questions posited to him. However, in the interest of jamming up the comment section I will stop.
Thanks for the reminder Charles,
Ricardo
I'm just playing with you (you are slow to catch on)
You take your life way too seriously.
And no I don't "forth" at the mouth.
I thought you wanted me ignored and silenced?
Isn't that the collective group-think in this forum that you blindlessly subscribe to?
Nice jab on San Francisco! Completely incorrect however...
What does San Francisco have to learn from Houston? It is a libertarian's paradise there. Houston doesn't even have any zoning! Pathetic...
And San Francisco is a vibrant, living, breathing, prosperous metropolis. Far from a "museum piece". And nothing in need of improvement.
When did I say that?
Your mind is playing tricks on you again. Plus, I thought you weren't responding to me, or did your mind forget that you said that earlier?
Hmm...zoning sure is some panacea, way to go SF:
http://www.examiner.com/a-517281~Dungeons_and_land_use_dragons.html
Full disclosure: the above is an editorial.
This just goes on and on..
Admit it, you're a free market, gun-toting, militia-type, libertarian who feels Adam Smith is god and the invisible hand will solve all of our problems. Ever taken in course in economics?
My 'shun' button: activated.
Is it now crystal clear to everyone that dialog with vtlad is fruitless?
Can we now completely ignore him and move on so he'll go away?
Thank you in advance.
Best,
D
My Shun Button Too
Dano, thank you for making this point. I have also decided that we should just ignore vtboy and never respond to anything he says.
To everyone on the list: before you respond to him, take a look at earlier threads. You will see that he always wants to have the last word, and so he will bicker endlessly. If he has no response to what you say, he will either respond to some other point that you did not make, or he will insult you personally.
I think it is very clear that no one takes him seriously, so there is no need to respond to him.
Charles Siegel
The crusade to boot vtboy99...
Jump on the bandwagon Charles and pat yourselves on the back.
I'm waiting to get booted!! Shunning me won't solve the problem or get rid of me.
What do you have to do with this?
Have I been booted yet?
No.
Bye D. Go away.
I'm the harsh voice of reality.
What do you have to do with this?
I'm calling on everyone to ignore your yapping and not reply to you.
We all have to put up with your hand-waving, widdle namie-calling and idiocy. If I want to read a comment I have to click on it, thus I'm subjected to your cr*p.
Therefore, I'm suggesting that you get ignored so all of us can be spared your juvenile rants.
Your mommy never told you that you sound as if you gave some proposals to the 5 people you rag on at every opportunity and they rejected you, and now you have some h*rd*n against them. Well, who cares.
So, how can I say this nicely: I really can't. But someone has to. I'll take the leap.
Best,
D
Bravo, Dano
Though not a frequent commenter, I do read posts fairly often. vtboy99's tirades grew old, repetitive, and down-right hostile and dogmatic ages ago. He has not proposed any solutions or ideas for better development, but merely ranted continuously on his hatred of, well, just about everything.
AR
AR
Your problem is you live in Orange County. Strike one, two, and three. I pity you...
So then why am I still here?
Why hasn't Planetizen booted me off yet? I asked them to, but they ignored me.
Until then, I'll continue my venomous, bitter, mean-spirited, un-civil, incoherent, rambling diatribes and piss off people like nurevolution, dano ricardo, etc etc.
I love it baby!
Vt: Please stay your cynicism amuses me
I completely agree with Dano... I will begin to completely ignore Vtboy here on out.
However, I praise Planetizen for not booting him. I do believe in the freedom of speech, and the freedom of individuals to make utter fools of themselves...
The sad part is that on some occasions I might actually believe there to be some merit to Vt's comments. However, he has gone about making his points in such an angry, derogatory, cynical, generalized-vague manner, that it is hard to see anything other than his hatred for just about everyone. Except for San Francisco (the worlds most perfect city). So planners, pack up your bags because San Fran no longer needs your help as they have already succeeded in creating a utopian society according to Vt's logic. Thanks to Vt, we should move the capital of our proud nation to San Fran and appoint VT King so that he can PERSONALLY solve the problems of the rest of the United States. I’m sure his track record would warrant such action!
Finally, I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one tired of Vt's Pat Robertson like verbiage.
Why did you respond to me?
Please tell me?
And by the way, San Francisco DOES rule.
Silencing critics...
Silencing, or even ignoring, one's critics is fundamentally a bad idea. That is the creepy practice of the Bush Administration and it has turned this country into a nation of paranoid, narrow-minded ideologues, self-righteously preaching "we know what's best" to the rest of the planet. (As a planner who travels and works a lot abroad, it has become embarrassing just to show a US passport.) I hope this forum doesn't go down the same slippery slope.
Thank you.
I am a lone voice of dissent in this forum and intend to keep it that way.
There are some creepy idealogues in this forum who jump down your throat if you have anything negative to say about New Urbanism, Andres Duany, Peter Calthorpe, Smart Growth, Form-Based Codes, Green Building, CNU, ULI, LEED-ND, etc, etc.
That's why I feel like my venom is a refreshing change from the collective group-think that is typically found in this forum.
God bless free speech (and San Francisco).
God Bless Free Speech! (and all of America not just San Fran)
Im totally fine with dissent and I encourage it. However, i'd just like it to be coupled with specific claims, evidence to support it, and rebuttles after I respond to your comments. I actually think me and you have alot in common and I mostly agree with most of your criticisms, just not your means of going about them.
Olive Branch
Fair enough. Let's shake on it. And I will do a better job of backing up my valid criticisms in future posts...
Wish I'd seen THIS thread earlier....
need I say more?
Now you know...
...to skip over the comment when you see that name. Lots do.
Best,
D
Good Advice Dano
Silence the dissent!
Isn't that what Mussolini and Hitler did to critics of their facist, totalitarian regimes during WWII?
Can't really have an open forum or weblog when certain participants decide to "block" or even encourage others to ignore those who have conflicting (or even supposedly "uncivil") viewpoints from the cumulative dialogue.
So this is what our society has come full circle to. Sounds a bit like George W. Bush/Cheney/et al. to me...
And be sure to calmly ignore this message Dano like you always do, and be sure to tell others to do the same! Good advice!
Ignorage, not silencing. But we have Reductio ad Hitlerum.
[/ignore]
I break my silence merely to point out, yet again, you must mis/malcharacterize what I write to have play.
That is the issue. But you knew that.
Anyway, I invoke Godwin's law on this thread, as we find his law holds:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
[ignore]
Best,
D
Ignoring
and telling others to ignore is essentially equal to silencing, stop with the semantics. Therefore, I was in no way mischaracterizing or "having play" with what you said. You can replace the convenient Hitler analogy with Stalin, Pinochet, Franco, Amin, G. W. Bush, or whomever you choose. You get the point.
When did you ever manage to find time to scrounge that obscure, useless link from wikipedia? Nice research, but a futile attempt to apply non-empirical social-science observations with latin nomenclature to the blogosphere.
Seriously, get a life, you're totally scaring us Dano! Enough of the HTML tags, and keep on ignoring!
Care to add, travis?
Or are you just rambling again?
Yes, you DO need to say more actually!!!
And by the way, a word of advice, stop jumping threads.
If you have anything of real mature substance to say, do so in the active thread, which we were previously conversing in. Please do not do so in this outdated thread in which you are poorly attempting to make some useless point and deflect my most recent posting.