3 ms·

I haven't really seen you argue anything new (We're specifically targeting MSG, other concert venues from decades ago won't do? Okay. We're again talking not ab

I haven't really seen you argue anything new (We're specifically targeting MSG, other concert venues from decades ago won't do? Okay. We're again talking not about the substance but the scale? Great, back to square one). But I will note the supreme irony of accusing me of rudeness, having introduced "ridiculous propositions" and "baseless pushbacks" into a discussion that, outside of your involvement in it, is fairly courteous and adult among the other half dozen participants.

freejazz 4y ago
I'm rebutting your assertion that it was practically possible to do before facial recognition was being used. It wasn't. That's clear because MSG has wanted to do this, but couldn't, until facial recognition was available. Everything else you are saying completely detracts from the reality of this situation. I'll point out a further irony, that once it is your own ego that is being challenged, suddenly you can make an astute observation and a reasonable deduction thereof. But when it was your hypothetical that you are pushing, which defies obvious reality, you were unable to make sense of anything.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  >I'm rebutting your assertion that it was practically possible to do before facial recognition was being used. This is unambiguously false. Examples in article from early 1900s, casinos, etc. Just going in circles here.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    MSG isn’t a casino. They have completely different business models and security needs. Casinos already have video surveillance on every single table as well as people monitoring them, on top of the on-floor security staff, which exist in much greater numbers than at MSG. This is a completely unreasonable comparison. There are no circles here, just your head in the sand ignoring these key fundamental differences that explain exactly why you are wrong. They are facially obvious and it's no coincidence that MSG didn't begin this conduct until facial recognition enabled them to.

freejazz 4y ago

I'm rebutting your assertion that it was practically possible to do before facial recognition was being used. It wasn't. That's clear because MSG has wanted to do this, but couldn't, until facial recognition was available. Everything else you are saying completely detracts from the reality of this situation. I'll point out a further irony, that once it is your own ego that is being challenged, suddenly you can make an astute observation and a reasonable deduction thereof. But when it was your hypothetical that you are pushing, which defies obvious reality, you were unable to make sense of anything.

kspacewalk2 4y ago
>I'm rebutting your assertion that it was practically possible to do before facial recognition was being used. This is unambiguously false. Examples in article from early 1900s, casinos, etc. Just going in circles here.
- freejazz 4y ago
  MSG isn’t a casino. They have completely different business models and security needs. Casinos already have video surveillance on every single table as well as people monitoring them, on top of the on-floor security staff, which exist in much greater numbers than at MSG. This is a completely unreasonable comparison. There are no circles here, just your head in the sand ignoring these key fundamental differences that explain exactly why you are wrong. They are facially obvious and it's no coincidence that MSG didn't begin this conduct until facial recognition enabled them to.