I'm not talking about anyone else. (Note the consistent use of the first
person in my post.)
The second part of what you say is true, of course, but I haven't refuted
it. I used *my personal experience* to refute the assertion by George that
being close to downtown was "irrelevant" because "jobs are in the burbs", as
if the only reason to be downtown is proximity to jobs. That's "not even
remotely true" either. I'm downtown by choice. My choice has nothing to do
with job locations. Being downtown is highly relevant to me. Therefore the
assertion is not true. QED.
The introduction of job locations is a red herring in a discussion about
whether the data George presented supports the claims made in George's
"review" of a book. You might back up the thread and see what you think.
Repeating a thing does not make it true, except in the sense of the "Big
You keep dodging criticism of your statements, by referring back to "the
book." My comments were made in relation to *your* "review", and subsequent
posts. If you're statement was meant to be about "urban patterns as a whole"
then your choice of words did not match your intent, as it was not stated.
Perhaps you are using a personal shorthand but it impedes any discussion
with others. Saying that being "close to downtown is irrelevant" without any
context invites one to infer that it is meant as a universally true
statement. I pointed out that it isn't, if only in the case of one
I'm fairly busy. If I'm going to read a book on the basis of a "review", I'm
afraid it couldn't be this kind of review. It was sloppy, highly polemical
and rhetorical and the bias of the author was evident right from the start-
more of an op-ed piece, or a sermon, than a review. Its bias contradicted my
own position, but I read on and quickly found unsubstantiated claims in it.
I made comments related to that on the group, but have yet to see them
addressed, other than some quick and puerile ridicule based on an obvious
misreading of my comment or misunderstanding of the data. That is political
behavior, not intellectual.
Do you still remember my 2 points? If you want credibility with me then
addressing them would be a good start. If, on the other hand, you want to be
the champion of the suburbs, knock yourself out, but I'm not really
interested in engaging an impenetrable ideology. When I was young I used to
find that amusing, but now I don't have time for it.
If the next thing you advocate is the right to personally bear nuclear
weapons, and then the abolition of all cities, which, come to think of it,
does seem to have a frightening internal cohesion, there's a line forming
over there.....behind Don.
I am reminded of our recent discussion of cars, and your stuff about
horses falling down and cars not creating sprawl or something like that...
...I guess as long as you try to avoid letting a book-- any book-- you
fancy, sidetrack you, or muddle your reading-comprehension or general
understanding beyond the book, we should be ok. ;)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.