there can be only one
Downtown said:Almost an unfair death match. Habanero has been around much longer to build her fan base.
jordanb said:Oh, I voted for Habanero. I figure she probably needs the self-esteem boost more than I do.
I mean, I work for a bureaucracy too, but at least I can take comfort in the knowledge that what I do actually benefits the people of my state.
It must be so hard being the modern equivalent to the person who makes sure that all of the citizens break their eggs on the right end.
If by "planning," you mean "keeping schools and hazmat sites away from eachother," then of course it's a good thing. But that's becoming less of a concern as industry continues to become cleaner.So planning doesn't benefit anyone?
Is that an approved use of my apartment or do I need a variance?Go drink chlorine.
jordanb said:I mean, I work for a bureaucracy too, but at least I can take comfort in the knowledge that what I do actually benefits the people of my state.
Most of here are professionals (not that should make too much of a difference) who look at this place as a place to discuss, critique ideas and ask for help in a polite manner. If I wanted to be attacked for the stuff I administer I have a half dozen messages sitting on my desk to return.
It would be similar to as if after reading "silicone snake oil" I started posting to IT groups and espousing the ideals of a single critic as if they where a universal truth. I doubt I'd be welcome there very long.
As for baiting people about religion and such, that is against one of the rules of the group.
jordanb said:I certianly know now not to make posts questioning zoning practices with which I disagree to this board.
You started with a smart ass attitude and still continue with one. You wrote we did not give it the thought it deserves, seeing as this is my JOB, I think I do give it the thought it deserves. You however, are not in this feild and if you cannot understand that, as a planner, I take this job seriously and posted here to get other opinions and exerptise of fellow planers you are sorely mistaken. If you had wanted to ask why it was an issue or ask for clarification, fine, but do not fiegn victim status and deny you posted "WHO CARES?!?" It was not a misunderstanding, you did not ever attempt to understand, had you however, asked what my role was, it couldve saved you the poor addumtions you made. I state again, you need a very good chiropractor.jordanb said:First of all, donk, this would have been significantly easier had you responded here. I'll reply to you here rather than in the offtopic thread to make things consistent.
I just reread my posts to the thread in question and I can not find a single one that would be considered rude within the mores established by the other posters on this board and taking into account that I was on the defensive for most of the thread, with the possible exception of my response to Chet, and the NIMBY statement which was clearly the result of a misunderstanding. My initial statement was terse, yes, but you are clearly reading something into it that I did not intend and I still do not understand if you consider it at all rude.
You did not know who I was, instead of asking who I was (oh what did you say, something along the lines of pissed off neighbour) you ASSumed who I was. And no, I do not believe you tried to nicely say, "I don't agree", you said (may I paraphrase?) "Who cares, it's not like she's smelting iron." I understand if you do not know enough to fill a pint about planning, but do not suggest that incompatable land uses should be a "who cares" matter. I care, and for that matter, neighbors care- incompatable land uses have often shown to reduce property values, and if you don't think that matters, keep renting.jordanb said:
In fact, the last post was intended to be conciliatory. I was attempting to end my involvement in the argument as I could see that it was not at all in my interest to continue with it, and in doing so to soothe things over in an effort to put it behind me. It was never my intention to troll. In fact I was shocked at the response my post generated, and I never would have made it had I known what would become of it. I was honestly under the impression that Habanero was asking for help in how to interpret a regulation and that I might influence her in the direction I thought was best by making that post.
If you are dissappointed, think of how you portrayed yourself. The only person you should be dissappointed in is yourself in that you posted here and instead of posting in a nice, pleasant manner, you trolled the very thread I was serious about. Instead of getting helpful answers it ended up being about you and your uneducated ideas. I pity a city that would hire you with your attitude. Furthermore, I did ask if you did not have something intelligent to offer, to offer nothing at all. You were on the defensive because you took that stance with your opening line.jordanb said:
I must say that I am surprised and disappointed that that thread has generated nothing on this board except for a hatred of me by a few people, even after Lee Nellis made what I would think would be a good opener for a serious discussion. I might add that his post very eloquently made the argument I was awkwardly groping for throughout the thread.
Since that thread, however, I have received a torrent of vitriol and hostility from certain people on this board. I am heartened by the fact that, until this thread (which I will get to), it appeared to all be coming from a very small group of people, with varying degrees of tact. I'm not at all convinced that, until this thread, I have done anything that should reasonably garner the response I've gotten. Perhaps that's due to my neophyte status on this board and an inability on my part to propery guage how my responses are interpreted.
First of all, I've not read a single critic, as the reading list I posted on my introduction shows, I've read dozens of different authors on the subject and, most importantly, seen the difference between good and bad planning firsthand. In fact it was that firsthand experience that caused me to be interested in urban planning at all.
It was an ANALOGY, but I digress.jordanb said:
Secondly, while Computer Science is a very complicated and intricate discipline, it is so full of bullshit and hype that I'm sure everything in that book is true and then some. You would be perfectly legitimate to complain that software is buggy and overhyped in just about any forum on the internet. CS is a very immature science that could benefit greatly, I think, from a user base who demanded better results than it currently produces.
Great, glad to have your $0.02 on that one. *whew* Couldn't have gone without that for another 1,000 years or so. Your topic of religion is about as touchy as summer camp at the Vatican. Keep it off of Cyburbia, it is one of the rules.jordanb said:I assume you're implying that I "religiously baited" someone. I think I should explain my situation a bit. I'm not a religious person. In fact, I consider my beliefs to be agnostic. I am, however, a baptized Catholic. My family (to whom I'm very close as Catholics tend to be) is Catholic. I know very many Catholic people. I am exposed to attitudes towards Catholics routinely that are nothing less than prejudiced. I see jokes made about Catholics that, applied to any other religion, would be classified as bigotry. They are by the way completely inconsistent with the reality of Catholicism. The vast majority of Catholics I know are intelligent, rational, free thinking people. I have no doubt that Huston did not mean his joke to be scurrilous, but that's exactly what it was, and as a Catholic I felt obligated to respond to it. I've made jokes I've regretted too, and I bear him no ill will for making it, but it was reprehensible nonetheless.
jordanb said:Mastiff - Currently I'm working on importing all of our employment data into GIS. The Illinois MPOs are very interested in it.
jordanb said:Habanero - Actually neophyte is a commonly used word in some parts. I did have to look scurrilous up to make sure it meant what I thought it meant.
donk - No harm done on the offtopic bit.