5 ms·
Strangely enough, San Francisco was thriving 100 years before the computer chip even existed. Don't overestimate your importance. The world will move on withou
by waterlesscloud 11y ago
Strangely enough, San Francisco was thriving 100 years before the computer chip even existed.
Don't overestimate your importance. The world will move on without you.
- DannyBee 11y agoThriving? I think reasonable people disagree. The vast majority of people i've talked to think SF was a craphole 25 years ago. I think a lot of people have the golden age fallacy going on :)
- waterlesscloud 11y agoI see you know absolutely nothing about the history of San Francisco.
- DannyBee 11y agoSo you don't think reasonable people can disagree about the quality of san francisco 25 years ago? Interesting. It's good to know it's an objective fact with only one possible answer.
- e40 11y agoThe vast majority of people i've talked to think SF was a craphole 25 years ago. Let's see, I've been in the area for 40 years and your comment couldn't be more wrong or uninformed.
- DannyBee 11y agoGiven it's an opinion, based on a lot of data, i don't see how you can think it can be uninformed. You are welcome to disagree with it of course. But, again, based on what i have, i suspect you may be in the minority. Time will tell, of course!
- waterlesscloud 11y agoIf you have data on your side, let's see it.
- DannyBee 11y agoErrr, i already said it's from talking to many people (~100-200 over the course of the year) who have lived there a very long time (in most cases, 30+ years). Given i stated an aggregation of what their responses were, that's valid data. Not sure what more you want here. It seems you just violently disagree, but that doesn't make you right. It just makes you a data point in the other direction.
- waterlesscloud 11y agoSo you don't actually have data, just anecdotes you've selectively remembered. Noted. Side note- Nice work attempting to attach the pejorative term "violently" to my position. Not that it makes your side any more convincing, but it's smart in terms of contemporary rhetoric.
- tptacek 11y agoThis comment is pretty rude.
- waterlesscloud 11y agoWhich part was so rude you felt it necessary to make this comment?
- tptacek 11y agoSure, I'll answer that. First, you assumptively respond as if 'DannyBee doesn't have any data, because you dispute the provenance of his data. But there's a difference between "I agree with the validity of your data" and "you knowingly are arguing without evidence". Then, you pointlessly barb him about the selectivity of his memory. Finally, you deploy the classic message-board-jerk "nice work" rhetoric, which exists solely in order to inform the person you're talking to that you don't respect what they're writing. That's a lot of rudeness to pack into such a lightweight comment. A writer with exactly the same information trying to persuade people of the exact same position could accomplish what you've accomplished so far with just the words: "I don't agree with you".
- tptacek 11y agoHere's Bill Wyman's old Salon piece on it; it represents 17 years, but he grew up in East Bay in the 80s. http://www.salon.com/1999/11/03/sf/ http://www.salon.com/1999/11/03/sf/ (I remember it because I had just moved to SF from Chicago, again, when it was published).
- WalterSear 11y agoYour condescension is as misplaced as your argument, which is a truism verging on non-sequitar.
- waterlesscloud 11y agoCool. So you'll have no problem proving me wrong. Do so.