4 ms·

The 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 mor

by e40 11y ago

The 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 ago
Given 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 ago
  If you have data on your side, let's see it.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    Errr, 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 ago
      So 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 ago
        This comment is pretty rude.
        waterlesscloud 11y ago
        Which part was so rude you felt it necessary to make this comment?
        tptacek 11y ago
        Sure, 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".
        waterlesscloud 11y ago
        No, I do not respect the rhetorical tactic attempting to paint my opinion with the the pejorative "violently." It's a cheap dishonest trick, and I will treat it as it deserves to be treated. There's nothing pointless or "barbing" (another word attempting to rhetorically paint my position) about my selective memory comment. I simply do not believe he talked to 200 people who all said SF sucked in the past. I truly think that he's leaving out people who believe otherwise. And it's not a controversial or "rude" opinion to say anecdotes are not data.
        tptacek 11y ago
        I saw this comment because I read all of DannyBee's comments, because they are frequently pretty great. That's a big part of how I read HN. Another person I read religious is 'dang, whose comments are the informal moderator log of HN. And why I'm saying this to you is, pretty much everyone that gets called out for incivility on HN deploys the argument you just did: "my incivility was justified by the comment that preceded it". I'm not persuaded. You asked!
tptacek 11y ago
Here'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).

by e40 11y ago

The 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 ago

Given 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 ago
If you have data on your side, let's see it.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  Errr, 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 ago
    So 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 ago
      This comment is pretty rude.
      - waterlesscloud 11y ago
        Which part was so rude you felt it necessary to make this comment?
        tptacek 11y ago
        Sure, 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".
        waterlesscloud 11y ago
        No, I do not respect the rhetorical tactic attempting to paint my opinion with the the pejorative "violently." It's a cheap dishonest trick, and I will treat it as it deserves to be treated. There's nothing pointless or "barbing" (another word attempting to rhetorically paint my position) about my selective memory comment. I simply do not believe he talked to 200 people who all said SF sucked in the past. I truly think that he's leaving out people who believe otherwise. And it's not a controversial or "rude" opinion to say anecdotes are not data.
        tptacek 11y ago
        I saw this comment because I read all of DannyBee's comments, because they are frequently pretty great. That's a big part of how I read HN. Another person I read religious is 'dang, whose comments are the informal moderator log of HN. And why I'm saying this to you is, pretty much everyone that gets called out for incivility on HN deploys the argument you just did: "my incivility was justified by the comment that preceded it". I'm not persuaded. You asked!

tptacek 11y ago

Here'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).