Bates phones it in again: Transit

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Once again... lawyer spam.
Play the victim.... then attack.

Jerk.

Did you have something to contribute to the discussion about commuter rail or TOD in Tulsa?

Yes.  As an honest Tulsan, unlike yourself...
I'd rather have you on ignore... but sometimes you have to respond and make sure the good people on this site understand your dishonest dog-and-pony show...
gotta go to dinner.... news at 11.

Where is my dishonesty?  Do tell?  And spare us the crap about my being an Oklahoma Citian in disguise.  I assure you I live right here in midtown Tulsa.  Have lived here for a long time and have no particular connection or loyalty to OKC (other than having briefly lived there a couple lifetimes ago.

What has been "dishonest" in my so-called "dog and pony show"?

We all look forward to your contributions to the discussion.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Or did you just want to jump straight into your threatening attacks we're familiar with (at least those of us who got to see it before the board administrators swept it under the rug.)

It is STILL my opinion you should be banned from this site... but you're too subtle for people to catch on...

I should be banned?  Banned for what, exactly?  Introducing too many inconvenient facts?

[USRufnex]

hey, that's nice... more sarcastic lawyeristic spam...

per usual.... you did this with the river tax and every other issue... i'll go into more detail after dinner... if you're able to wait that long...

i'll sure appreciate it from ya'...

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

I should be banned?  Banned for what, exactly?  Introducing too many inconvenient facts?

Facts?  [}:)]  Since when? At best you offer conjecture.  When confronted with facts you argue...poorly.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument.  This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."

Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.

There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.

I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth.  Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass.  We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).  

Why bother?  Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum.  First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead.  Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa.  We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.

So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts.  I do.  That's my last word.

Cheers.

oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...

So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable?  Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living.  I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh?  good logic there.

no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...

i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...

Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich.  Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa.  There is plenty I like about Tulsa.  I have a great life here.  But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade +    You know so much less than you pretend.  So we met many years ago.  People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time.  Well, some people do...  

If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.

How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?

you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?

so now you love it here? great, good for you...

"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...

just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."

i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...

and "king of snark"?!? kick donkey, i'm putting that on my letterhead...

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument.  This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."

Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.

There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.

I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth.  Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass.  We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).  

Why bother?  Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum.  First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead.  Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa.  We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.

So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts.  I do.  That's my last word.

Cheers.

oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...

So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable?  Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living.  I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh?  good logic there.

no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...

i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...

Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich.  Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa.  There is plenty I like about Tulsa.  I have a great life here.  But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade +    You know so much less than you pretend.  So we met many years ago.  People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time.  Well, some people do...  

If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.

How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?

you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?

so now you love it here? great, good for you...

"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...

just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."

i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...

So why do you insist on doing it?  If you have an issue with ANY facts I've presented or statements I've made, have at it.  Tell me where I'm wrong.  Show me evidence that I'm wrong.  Isn't that what these discussion boards are for?  I don't know what your problem is, man.  Are your feelings that hurt that I don't remember you?  ;-)

What is with you and Rufnex that rarely can either of you challenge anyone's factual presentations or opinions without going ballistically personal? (and don't be pretending it's just me... we all saw your ridiculous ad hominem attack on Bates earlier in this thread.)

Actually, that gives you and Rufnex a bit too much credit.  I implied that you challenge facts and opinions.  Too often, neither of you even bothers with that little detail.  Just go straight for the ad hominems.  

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

I should be banned?  Banned for what, exactly?  Introducing too many inconvenient facts?

Facts?  [}:)]  Since when? At best you offer conjecture.  When confronted with facts you argue...poorly.

Instead of continuing with these ridiculous personal attacks... did you have any thoughts on my recent response to your post regarding there being little current development in Tulsa?

Here it is again, in case you overlooked it:

   CL:  Lawyer down, Cappy. There is no other significant growth happening elsewhere in the city. Tulsa is fourth or fifth in the region for housing starts, behind unincorporated Rogers County. Even if your hypothesis were true, i.e., that transit-oriented development is just cannibalization of the new housing market, it'd still be "new" for Tulsa, and thus, a win.



OC:  I'm not entirely sure about that. Does it not make sense that most people who are interested in a denser environment would currently look to live in the denser areas of the metro (i.e. midtown Tulsa)? I'm not seeing most of the market for new suburban housing in Bixby or Owasso being very enticed by a dense housing development on a rail line. Now the people who currently look at the areas around Cherry Street, Brookside, along Riverside Drive... THERE's your market for TOD living.

Besides which, don't forget station no. 1 is in downtown Broken Arrow, not Tulsa.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

I'm not entirely sure about that.  Does it not make sense that most people who are interested in a denser environment would currently look to live in the denser areas of the metro (i.e. midtown Tulsa)?  

No, it doesn't make sense.  Empty nesters and twenty-somethings are the driving force behind "new urbanism".  One group has no need for the bixby house anymore, and the is fresh from the dorms.

quote:I'm not seeing most of the market for new suburban housing in Bixby or Owasso being very enticed by a dense housing development on a rail line.  Now the people who currently look at the areas around Cherry Street, Brookside, along Riverside Drive... THERE's your market for TOD living.

Besides which, don't forget station no. 1 is in downtown Broken Arrow, not Tulsa.

Open your eyes, man.  You've just rattled off the neighborhoods some of the priciest (per sq ft) real estate in the region:  

de·mand      /de-mænd, -mand/
9.   Economics.
a.   the desire to purchase, coupled with the power to do so.
b.   the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price.

Why are the prices so high in midtown neighborhoods like Brookside, Swan Lake, Cherry Street, etc.?  Is it because there is a finite group of people in this town who prefer to pay too much for their property?  That's ludicrous, of course, but it seems to be the core of your argument.

No, it's because people want to live in denser areas, but Tulsa simply does not have enough to offer the market.

Your argument is weak.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument.  This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."

Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.

There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.

I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth.  Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass.  We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).  

Why bother?  Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum.  First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead.  Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa.  We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.

So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts.  I do.  That's my last word.

Cheers.

oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...

So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable?  Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living.  I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh?  good logic there.

no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...

i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...

Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich.  Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa.  There is plenty I like about Tulsa.  I have a great life here.  But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade +    You know so much less than you pretend.  So we met many years ago.  People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time.  Well, some people do...  

If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.

How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?

you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?

so now you love it here? great, good for you...

"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...

just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."

i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...

So why do you insist on doing it?  If you have an issue with ANY facts I've presented or statements I've made, have at it.  Tell me where I'm wrong.  Show me evidence that I'm wrong.  Isn't that what these discussion boards are for?  I don't know what your problem is, man.  Are your feelings that hurt that I don't remember you?  ;-)

What is with you and Rufnex that rarely can either of you challenge anyone's factual presentations or opinions without going ballistically personal? (and don't be pretending it's just me... we all saw your ridiculous ad hominem attack on Bates earlier in this thread.)

Actually, that gives you and Rufnex a bit too much credit.  I implied that you challenge facts and opinions.  Too often, neither of you even bothers with that little detail.  Just go straight for the ad hominems.  

ok, you got me now i'm in this just because its entertaining...

how many times did i post in this thread? 9 and because reading for comprehension seems to be a deficit i'll summarize them-
post 1: bates is a dude, we fix transit,   and we'll get development around it. bates he looks like a guy i saw on TV last night (it was a ****ing joke)
post 2: rail down "every arterial"? bates is nuts for making these comments because it is patently absurd.
we should make this our focus.
post 3: OT- blackjack discussion
post 4: chicken train picture
post 5: let's get a comp plan that addresses development and transit
post 6: bates- "every arterial", "how far you'd have to walk," "colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities" all scare tactics or delusions
post 7: thumbs up
post 8: furious that you'd still dismiss someones fund of knowledge despite them demonstrating they may indeed have more knowledge about a topic than you... yes, scumbag lawyer- only considered to be an ad hominem by lawyers; repetitious? true enough
post 9: you used to say how much you hate it here... concern troll...
post 10: concern troll...

how many times did i make a personal attack against you in an attempt to discredit your (not bates') logic (which is an ad hominem otherwise they're just insults and not part of the argument)? 0

get it through your head- because of your prior comments (tulsa is hell) i'll never be convinced that you'll ever be well intentioned in any discussion regarding this town... so feel free to put me on ignore and i'll do the same...

get over yourself, sweetie... we've never met... you're just not careful...

now im done, i'll leave you with the last word.

[booWorld]

One of the reasons Tulsa doesn't have more dense neighborhoods to offer the market is due to the TMAPC's quest to down-zone.  The TMAPC has squelched those higher density opportunities in a large chunk of my own neighborhood near downtown.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

One of the reasons Tulsa doesn't have more dense neighborhoods to offer the market is due to the TMAPC's quest to down-zone.  The TMAPC has squelched those higher density opportunities in a large chunk of my own neighborhood near downtown.

That seems pretty ridiculous, but then, I don't want to seem to be trashing Tulsa's fine government.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

I'm not entirely sure about that.  Does it not make sense that most people who are interested in a denser environment would currently look to live in the denser areas of the metro (i.e. midtown Tulsa)?  

No, it doesn't make sense.  Empty nesters and twenty-somethings are the driving force behind "new urbanism".  One group has no need for the bixby house anymore, and the is fresh from the dorms.

quote:


Fair enough, but seriously, if those empty nesters are in the market to downsize, and there is no TOD, where will they go?  Likewise for the 20 somethings.  In the absence of TOD, where will they go?  I'm thinking it's likely to be midtown Tulsa as opposed to Bixby.  No?

I'm not seeing most of the market for new suburban housing in Bixby or Owasso being very enticed by a dense housing development on a rail line.  Now the people who currently look at the areas around Cherry Street, Brookside, along Riverside Drive... THERE's your market for TOD living.

Besides which, don't forget station no. 1 is in downtown Broken Arrow, not Tulsa.

Open your eyes, man.  You've just rattled off the neighborhoods some of the priciest (per sq ft) real estate in the region:  

de·mand      /de-mænd, -mand/
9.   Economics.
a.   the desire to purchase, coupled with the power to do so.
b.   the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price.

Why are the prices so high in midtown neighborhoods like Brookside, Swan Lake, Cherry Street, etc.?  Is it because there is a finite group of people in this town who prefer to pay too much for their property?  That's ludicrous, of course, but it seems to be the core of your argument.

No, it's because people want to live in denser areas, but Tulsa simply does not have enough to offer the market.

Your argument is weak.

Amazing it is that I ever get accused of snarkiness around here.  ;-)   It's hardly a news flash that core area housing tends to be expensive.  But there is plenty of affordable housing here in midtown Tulsa. And, it's not like any TOD housing is likely to be inexpensive.   This stuff is expensive because of the high land prices.  As someone not accused of snarkiness as often as I am would say:

"de·mand      /de-mænd, -mand/
9.   Economics.
a.   the desire to purchase, coupled with the power to do so.
b.   the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price."

And remember that you and/or others earlier in this thread have told us that the land prices around rail stations will skyrocket.

;-)

I look forward to your thoughtful response.  I'm confident you can do it.

[USRufnex]

My opinions and personal experience are on pg. 5 inbetween all the posts before all the tit-for-tat googled statistics...

let's cut to the chase...

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5310&whichpage=7&SearchTerms=Davaz

read pgs 5-8...read all 8 pgs if you want... looked for OC's opinions, rhetoric, and spin... very illuminating... []

back to ignore...

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument.  This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."

Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.

There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.

I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth.  Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass.  We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).  

Why bother?  Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum.  First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead.  Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa.  We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.

So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts.  I do.  That's my last word.

Cheers.

oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...

So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable?  Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living.  I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh?  good logic there.

no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...

i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...

Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich.  Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa.  There is plenty I like about Tulsa.  I have a great life here.  But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade +    You know so much less than you pretend.  So we met many years ago.  People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time.  Well, some people do...  

If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.

How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?

you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?

so now you love it here? great, good for you...

"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...

just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."

i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...

So why do you insist on doing it?  If you have an issue with ANY facts I've presented or statements I've made, have at it.  Tell me where I'm wrong.  Show me evidence that I'm wrong.  Isn't that what these discussion boards are for?  I don't know what your problem is, man.  Are your feelings that hurt that I don't remember you?  ;-)

What is with you and Rufnex that rarely can either of you challenge anyone's factual presentations or opinions without going ballistically personal? (and don't be pretending it's just me... we all saw your ridiculous ad hominem attack on Bates earlier in this thread.)

Actually, that gives you and Rufnex a bit too much credit.  I implied that you challenge facts and opinions.  Too often, neither of you even bothers with that little detail.  Just go straight for the ad hominems.  

ok, you got me now i'm in this just because its entertaining...

how many times did i post in this thread? 9 and because reading for comprehension seems to be a deficit i'll summarize them-
post 1: bates is a dude, we fix transit,   and we'll get development around it. bates he looks like a guy i saw on TV last night (it was a ****ing joke)
post 2: rail down "every arterial"? bates is nuts for making these comments because it is patently absurd.
we should make this our focus.
post 3: OT- blackjack discussion
post 4: chicken train picture
post 5: let's get a comp plan that addresses development and transit
post 6: bates- "every arterial", "how far you'd have to walk," "colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities" all scare tactics or delusions
post 7: thumbs up
post 8: furious that you'd still dismiss someones fund of knowledge despite them demonstrating they may indeed have more knowledge about a topic than you... yes, scumbag lawyer- only considered to be an ad hominem by lawyers; repetitious? true enough
post 9: you used to say how much you hate it here... concern troll...
post 10: concern troll...

how many times did i make a personal attack against you in an attempt to discredit your (not bates') logic (which is an ad hominem otherwise they're just insults and not part of the argument)? 0

get it through your head- because of your prior comments (tulsa is hell) i'll never be convinced that you'll ever be well intentioned in any discussion regarding this town... so feel free to put me on ignore and i'll do the same...

get over yourself, sweetie... we've never met... you're just not careful...

now im done, i'll leave you with the last word.

When did I say "Tulsa is hell"?  When exactly did I post those words?  

Oh and pardon me for accusing you merely of ad hominems.  I left out the personal insults.  You are truly a model forum member.

I'm sorry I don't post enough happy-talk to make you believe I'm a real Tulsan. I'll try to be more boosterish.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

My opinions and personal experience are on pg. 5 inbetween all the posts before all the tit-for-tat googled statistics...

let's cut to the chase...

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5310&whichpage=5&SearchTerms=Davaz

read pgs 5-8...read all 8 pgs if you want... looked for OC's opinions, rhetoric, and spin... very illuminating... []

back to ignore...

Praise the lord and please keep it there.  ;-)