[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I don't have a problem with most of your post, save for the bolded parts:

I highly doubt no one could follow the point Left Wing was making. It wasn't that hard to follow.

LeftWing wasn't jumped on because no one understood what he was trying to say, he got jumped on because of two reasons:

1. The angle he was coming from and the illustrations he used were at best tenuous and at worst just as extreme and as much a gross oversimplification of the Peace Bridge vs. [Insert typical and generic "suburban" road interchange, or all such interchanges as a group] is in the first place.

2. After getting nowhere with his poorly-supported analogies, his posts very quickly devolved into trolling tactics of thinly-veiled mocking sarcasm and being purposely obtuse and side-stepping to evoke emotional responses. To be fair, this didn't go without similar retaliation.

Just the same as Left Wing's point should be apparent from today's conversation, so too should the point behind the Peace Bridge vs. interchanges qualitative comparison 90% of the time it's been used in this thread. Most of the time it's been brought up is as a higher-level qualitative comparison involving some of these criteria that have been brought up in discussion:

- Prone to cost overruns
- Generally only practically useful in the day-to-day lives of relatively small group people who live in or visit very small areas of the city.
- Prone to procedural missteps on the part of the City
- Associated with a niche transport mode that has correlation with particular lifestyle choices


Outside of being used to illustrate the above, the basis of the Peace Bridge vs. Interchanges comparison deteriorates rapidly. It is true that some people have been careless in alluding to this comparison in this thread, but I think most would agree that it's ridiculous beyond the boundaries of discussing the above. It's quite apparent that LeftWing was either being purposely obtuse or legitimately didn't understand the intended (and narrow) point of what he ended up trying to refute.


No the suburbs haven't been getting large interchanges at the expense of the poor inner city folks being punished.


I don't like the suburbs vs. inner-city false-dichotomy debate, but any reasonable assumptions made in defining what one means by "inner-city" and "suburbs" (i.e. where the imaginary line is) would make what you just said a falsehood.

This is bordering too much on a sweeping generalization than I'm usually comfortable with, but this, almost to the point of being a rule, has been false for the last 60 years and will be for at least a few more years.

Both I can agree with.

I think the burbs vs. inner city is just a silly - but again, it's what half the battle seemed to be about, which is just ridiculous - so I was working with what I had.