So they took into account that this property was hacked by amateurs both in the design phase, and later in renovations, but still concluded that the property had historic significance? Maybe I missed it in the report, but I have to ask why?
I don't think I'd put it that way. The professional evaluator of this property certainly didn't. This issue was discussed in both the report and the review of the report. Both professionals determined that it was still eligible according to the criteria for eligibility which are used.
That's one element of this it seems few are prepared to accept or understand. It's not about how anyone feels. It's not arbitrary. The historical significance of a property is determined by professionals, according to established criteria and factual analysis. Anyone who choses to do so can read the entire analysis if they wish.
Continuing to question the significance of the property is a waste of effort. This fact was established a long time ago (in the report which you can read) and is not in dispute, and I don't believe it ever was. Other issues related to how California environmental law applied to the proposed demolition were at issue, and were litigated. That's why this took so long.
Quote:
I wonder if Smith was able to see what they did to the property, would he want it demolished?
We couldn't possibly know, but fortunately exhuming the dead isn't required.
Hey, 'stud', you basically put a foot in your mouth every time you post something here. The only people who take you seriously are those with similarly distorted perceptions of themselves. Self-important know-it-alls seem to gravitate to you, whereas people who choose to actually think rather than to just flap their lips see your commentary for what it is. Take your latest missive on SJ and his new liver. You apparently feel it is perfectly reasonable to launch into half-accusations that there was some sort of special treatment there (what did I say about always jumping on the worst possible explanation for something?), and you do it without even a shred of evidence to support your backhanded 'suggestion'... obviously without having educated yourself about how the transplant system works, against all of the stated policy and procedure that has thus far been explained, and in contrary to the explanation the hospital has given, which is completely in line with how the system works. Then, after all this ethical graft, you have the temerity to attempt to take the moral high ground, complete with insertion of an annoying emoticon because you apparently feel it enhances your point.
But of course, because you think something it must be true.
Actually in California a house is historical if it's occupied by ghosts. The have an entire state department for this. The department of historical other-worldly developers association. You have to pass everything through them before destroying any building here.
There are many fine examples of G.W. Smith's work in Santa Barbara. Unlike F.L. Wright, not everything he designed is significant. The house in question is not a good example of Smith's work. Aesthetically one can clearly see that it is a clunky, clumsy, and awkward example of Spanish Colonial revival architecture. It may not be Smith's fault, as sometimes rich, powerful, and willful clients will overrule a designer and make changes that destroy the integrity of a design. Some designers (like Wright) would say screw you, take it or leave it--it's my design not yours. Others will take the money and allow their designs to be compromised and messed up by rich folks who think their business success makes them experts in everything.
Unlike a previous poster, I don't see this as a property rights issue. If this was a great Frank Lloyd Wright national treasure like Falling Water, and some guy wanted to level it to build a tacky bourgeois McMansion, I'd say his property rights be damned. Some things ARE more important than property rights--they aren't absolute.
But in the case of a Frank Lloyd Wright building, you will find no shortage of people willing to pool enough to make a sensible deal, (I'm currently working on the Darwin D. Martin House restoration), And unfortunately, not ALL Wright buildings have been saved by the wrecking ball. And even in the ones that were saved, they almost weren't.
In this case people are just telling the owner what he should do using his own money to do their bidding. If you feel it is so important that you better step up and show you are willing to do it.
Hey, 'stud', you basically put a foot in your mouth every time you post something here. The only people who take you seriously are those with similarly distorted perceptions of themselves. Self-important know-it-alls seem to gravitate to you, whereas people who choose to actually think rather than to just flap their lips see your commentary for what it is. Take your latest missive on SJ and his new liver. You apparently feel it is perfectly reasonable to launch into half-accusations that there was some sort of special treatment there (what did I say about always jumping on the worst possible explanation for something?), and you do it without even a shred of evidence to support your backhanded 'suggestion'... obviously without having educated yourself about how the transplant system works, against all of the stated policy and procedure that has thus far been explained, and in contrary to the explanation the hospital has given, which is completely in line with how the system works. Then, after all this ethical graft, you have the temerity to attempt to take the moral high ground, complete with insertion of an annoying emoticon because you apparently feel it enhances your point.
But of course, because you think something it must be true.
Dude- I don't think no such thing- one way or the other. This story has been plastered all over CNN and the NYTimes all day and yesterday. Why don't you try to read more than just one website perhaps?
Yup - the laughable thing about you is that you seem to have so little insight into your own behavior that you can't even see just how biased you are, nor how badly you come across to everyone else. Your posts veritably ooze bias. The clever thing about you is that you often suggest things without asserting them, which then allows you to later claim that you "said no such thing" (dude). But again, it is apparent to everyone (but you, apparently) that suggesting something is virtually identical to asserting it on a forum like this (but considerably more disingenuous.)
Yup - the laughable thing about you is that you seem to have so little insight into your own behavior that you can't even see just how biased you are, nor how badly you come across to everyone else. Your posts veritably ooze bias. The clever thing about you is that you often suggest things without asserting them, which then allows you to later claim that you "said no such thing" (dude). But again, it is apparent to everyone (but you, apparently) that suggesting something is virtually identical to asserting it on a forum like this (but considerably more disingenuous.)
OK I'm like so stupid here. Exactly what is my bias?
Do put your foot deeper into your mouth with your further analysis.
OK I'm like so stupid here. Exactly what is my bias?
Do put your foot deeper into your mouth with your further analysis.
Your bias differs from post to post but virtually universally involves some very negative assumptions regarding motivation, intent, outcome of a sequence of events, etc. Your statements are often polarizing, and frequently they filter out any sort of light, such that only some darkness remains. In short, whatever possible reason may exist for something, you will pick the most negative, darkest, most despicable explanation, and then champion it is fact. SJ got a liver? Gee, perhaps he used his money to cheat the system! SJ wants to build a new house? Gee, it must be a conspiracy he planned for the last 16 years to get away with demolishing a historic property. Apple sells glossy displays? Gee, it must be because they deliberately cheeped out and refused to use better technology (because they don't care about the consumer!). On and on and on and on... you just keep droning the same garbage over and over and over, just substituting different topics, but always with the same general approach.
And for clarification, "I don't think no such thing" means "I do think such a thing."
Your bias differs from post to post but virtually universally involves some very negative assumptions regarding motivation, intent, outcome of a sequence of events, etc. Your statements are often polarizing, and frequently they filter out any sort of light, such that only some darkness remains. In short, whatever possible reason may exist for something, you will pick the most negative, darkest, most despicable explanation, and then champion it is fact. SJ got a liver? Gee, perhaps he used his money to cheat the system! SJ wants to build a new house? Gee, it must be a conspiracy he planned for the last 16 years to get away with demolishing a historic property. Apple sells glossy displays? Gee, it must be because they deliberately cheeped out and refused to use better technology (because they don't care about the consumer!). On and on and on and on... you just keep droning the same garbage over and over and over, just substituting different topics, but always with the same general approach.
And for clarification, "I don't think no such thing" means "I do think such a thing."
Ok- so now, I see, my "bias differs from post to post". And I'm laughable you say.
Good try though. And try to be a little more factual next time. LATER.
Ok- so now, I see, my "bias differs from post to post". And I'm laughable you say.
Good try though. And try to be a little more factual next time. LATER.
"Bias is a term used to described a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective", I think he did a pretty good job of demonstrating your bias.
"Bias is a term used to described a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective", I think he did a pretty good job of demonstrating your bias.
He was stating that you have a bias in favor of explanations that involve impure motives on the part of others.
I can read.
I'm just stating facts- therefor no bias. If anyone states anything (not even particularly factual) against Miscrosoft, Palm or Rim, on the other hand, that's considered non biased on here which is pretty pitiful actually.
And for future reference, I wouldn't be posting links from Wiki for definitions. I would use something a trifle more accurate like Webster's- just so you know.
Personally I'd love to see what Steve Jobs' dream house will look like. Will it be all modern? More traditional? he's got a family who will likely have some say in all of it.
On a related note, I'm looking forward to seeing what Apple's new/second campus will look like.
P.S. Won't it be funny (ironic) if 50 years from now (for those of us that are still alive) if people are having the exact same discussion about someone wanting to tear down Steve Jobs' house and someone else wanting to preserve it!
Personally I'd love to see what Steve Jobs' dream house will look like. Will it be all modern? More traditional? he's got a family who will likely have some say in all of it.
On a related note, I'm looking forward to seeing what Apple's new/second campus will look like.
P.S. Won't it be funny (ironic) if 50 years from now (for those of us that are still alive) if people are having the exact same discussion about someone wanting to tear down Steve Jobs' house and someone else wanting to preserve it!
Well he actually owns the $9mil glass cube on Fifth Avenue store and will take it with him if that helps fuel your imagination.
Well he actually owns the $9mil glass cube on Fifth Avenue store and will take it with him if that helps fuel your imagination.
Maybe. I kinda assume it will be quite modern in design. But maybe not. Sometimes I think we all have something of a caricature of Steve Jobs built up in our minds and that he could truly surprise us all. Assuming of course anyone will ever get to take any pictures of it.
I'm just stating facts- therefor no bias. If anyone states anything (not even particularly factual) against Miscrosoft, Palm or Rim, on the other hand, that's considered non biased on here which is pretty pitiful actually.
And for future reference, I wouldn't be posting links from Wiki for definitions. I would use something a trifle more accurate like Webster's- just so you know.
From Random House Dictionary:
"bi-as: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."
And from American Heritage Dictionary:
"A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."
E.g. a tendency to favor "explanations that involve impure motives on the part of others".
Don't worry, I'm sure the next 50 threads on the iPhone will be coming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Thanks for spelling it out. Next let's see why he got his new liver so fast. According to the doctors he played by the rules, meaning he was extremely sick (metastatic cancer). However Apple says he just had a hormonal imbalance. Did he cut to the front of the list because he is (as you say) SFJ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
OK I'm like so stupid here. Exactly what is my bias?
Um, your bias is against anything Apple and anyone who likes what the company makes. I've only been here a few months and it's perfectly clear that you hate everything about Apple based on your posts. Above are just a few from this thread alone.
If you are not "biased" against Apple, it sure doesn't show in any of your posts. You seem to constantly bitch and complain about everything Apple does, including the fact that AI dares to run a bunch of iPhone stories in the weeks following a new iPhone launch. Perhaps you think you are providing a counterpoint to the Apple "fanboys" you also constantly complain about, but, it's like chastising U2 fans on a U2 fan site.
Um, your bias is against anything Apple and anyone who likes what the company makes. I've only been here a few months and it's perfectly clear that you hate everything about Apple based on your posts. Above are just a few from this thread alone.
If you are not "biased" against Apple, it sure doesn't show in any of your posts. You seem to constantly bitch and complain about everything Apple does, including the fact that AI dares to run a bunch of iPhone stories in the weeks following a new iPhone launch. Perhaps you think you are providing a counterpoint to the Apple "fanboys" you also constantly complain about, but, it's like chastising U2 fans on a U2 fan site.
Give it a rest already.
Um?
You are completely mistaken. I don't hate everything about Apple. And if you averaged out the percentage of iPhone threads throughout the year you would see exactly what I meant. i may even buy an iPhone next week, now that it has all the features I've wanted for the past 2 years and the reviews it been receiving. I cxan deal with the AT&T issue as the "seem" to be in the process of upgrading as well- finally.
You really should read my posts and not just what the "fanboys' have said about me.
Just because I don't automatically go bananas for anything and everything "Apple", does not a hater make.
Comments
So they took into account that this property was hacked by amateurs both in the design phase, and later in renovations, but still concluded that the property had historic significance? Maybe I missed it in the report, but I have to ask why?
I don't think I'd put it that way. The professional evaluator of this property certainly didn't. This issue was discussed in both the report and the review of the report. Both professionals determined that it was still eligible according to the criteria for eligibility which are used.
That's one element of this it seems few are prepared to accept or understand. It's not about how anyone feels. It's not arbitrary. The historical significance of a property is determined by professionals, according to established criteria and factual analysis. Anyone who choses to do so can read the entire analysis if they wish.
Continuing to question the significance of the property is a waste of effort. This fact was established a long time ago (in the report which you can read) and is not in dispute, and I don't believe it ever was. Other issues related to how California environmental law applied to the proposed demolition were at issue, and were litigated. That's why this took so long.
I wonder if Smith was able to see what they did to the property, would he want it demolished?
We couldn't possibly know, but fortunately exhuming the dead isn't required.
And as if you even know me, yet you attack me?
Hey, 'stud', you basically put a foot in your mouth every time you post something here. The only people who take you seriously are those with similarly distorted perceptions of themselves. Self-important know-it-alls seem to gravitate to you, whereas people who choose to actually think rather than to just flap their lips see your commentary for what it is. Take your latest missive on SJ and his new liver. You apparently feel it is perfectly reasonable to launch into half-accusations that there was some sort of special treatment there (what did I say about always jumping on the worst possible explanation for something?), and you do it without even a shred of evidence to support your backhanded 'suggestion'... obviously without having educated yourself about how the transplant system works, against all of the stated policy and procedure that has thus far been explained, and in contrary to the explanation the hospital has given, which is completely in line with how the system works. Then, after all this ethical graft, you have the temerity to attempt to take the moral high ground, complete with insertion of an annoying emoticon because you apparently feel it enhances your point.
But of course, because you think something it must be true.
NO you mean the unfortunate. Being biased one way or the other is nothing to brag about.
Laughable - you are certainly the most biased person posting here.
...
....
There are many fine examples of G.W. Smith's work in Santa Barbara. Unlike F.L. Wright, not everything he designed is significant. The house in question is not a good example of Smith's work. Aesthetically one can clearly see that it is a clunky, clumsy, and awkward example of Spanish Colonial revival architecture. It may not be Smith's fault, as sometimes rich, powerful, and willful clients will overrule a designer and make changes that destroy the integrity of a design. Some designers (like Wright) would say screw you, take it or leave it--it's my design not yours. Others will take the money and allow their designs to be compromised and messed up by rich folks who think their business success makes them experts in everything.
Unlike a previous poster, I don't see this as a property rights issue. If this was a great Frank Lloyd Wright national treasure like Falling Water, and some guy wanted to level it to build a tacky bourgeois McMansion, I'd say his property rights be damned. Some things ARE more important than property rights--they aren't absolute.
But in the case of a Frank Lloyd Wright building, you will find no shortage of people willing to pool enough to make a sensible deal, (I'm currently working on the Darwin D. Martin House restoration), And unfortunately, not ALL Wright buildings have been saved by the wrecking ball. And even in the ones that were saved, they almost weren't.
In this case people are just telling the owner what he should do using his own money to do their bidding. If you feel it is so important that you better step up and show you are willing to do it.
Hey, 'stud', you basically put a foot in your mouth every time you post something here. The only people who take you seriously are those with similarly distorted perceptions of themselves. Self-important know-it-alls seem to gravitate to you, whereas people who choose to actually think rather than to just flap their lips see your commentary for what it is. Take your latest missive on SJ and his new liver. You apparently feel it is perfectly reasonable to launch into half-accusations that there was some sort of special treatment there (what did I say about always jumping on the worst possible explanation for something?), and you do it without even a shred of evidence to support your backhanded 'suggestion'... obviously without having educated yourself about how the transplant system works, against all of the stated policy and procedure that has thus far been explained, and in contrary to the explanation the hospital has given, which is completely in line with how the system works. Then, after all this ethical graft, you have the temerity to attempt to take the moral high ground, complete with insertion of an annoying emoticon because you apparently feel it enhances your point.
But of course, because you think something it must be true.
Dude- I don't think no such thing- one way or the other. This story has been plastered all over CNN and the NYTimes all day and yesterday. Why don't you try to read more than just one website perhaps?
Here I'll help you out:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/24...sts/index.html
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...er-transplant/
Laughable - you are certainly the most biased person posting here.
Do you even know what biased means?
Doyou know what biased means?
Yup - the laughable thing about you is that you seem to have so little insight into your own behavior that you can't even see just how biased you are, nor how badly you come across to everyone else. Your posts veritably ooze bias. The clever thing about you is that you often suggest things without asserting them, which then allows you to later claim that you "said no such thing" (dude). But again, it is apparent to everyone (but you, apparently) that suggesting something is virtually identical to asserting it on a forum like this (but considerably more disingenuous.)
Yup - the laughable thing about you is that you seem to have so little insight into your own behavior that you can't even see just how biased you are, nor how badly you come across to everyone else. Your posts veritably ooze bias. The clever thing about you is that you often suggest things without asserting them, which then allows you to later claim that you "said no such thing" (dude). But again, it is apparent to everyone (but you, apparently) that suggesting something is virtually identical to asserting it on a forum like this (but considerably more disingenuous.)
OK I'm like so stupid here. Exactly what is my bias?
Do put your foot deeper into your mouth with your further analysis.
OK I'm like so stupid here. Exactly what is my bias?
Do put your foot deeper into your mouth with your further analysis.
Your bias differs from post to post but virtually universally involves some very negative assumptions regarding motivation, intent, outcome of a sequence of events, etc. Your statements are often polarizing, and frequently they filter out any sort of light, such that only some darkness remains. In short, whatever possible reason may exist for something, you will pick the most negative, darkest, most despicable explanation, and then champion it is fact. SJ got a liver? Gee, perhaps he used his money to cheat the system! SJ wants to build a new house? Gee, it must be a conspiracy he planned for the last 16 years to get away with demolishing a historic property. Apple sells glossy displays? Gee, it must be because they deliberately cheeped out and refused to use better technology (because they don't care about the consumer!). On and on and on and on... you just keep droning the same garbage over and over and over, just substituting different topics, but always with the same general approach.
And for clarification, "I don't think no such thing" means "I do think such a thing."
Your bias differs from post to post but virtually universally involves some very negative assumptions regarding motivation, intent, outcome of a sequence of events, etc. Your statements are often polarizing, and frequently they filter out any sort of light, such that only some darkness remains. In short, whatever possible reason may exist for something, you will pick the most negative, darkest, most despicable explanation, and then champion it is fact. SJ got a liver? Gee, perhaps he used his money to cheat the system! SJ wants to build a new house? Gee, it must be a conspiracy he planned for the last 16 years to get away with demolishing a historic property. Apple sells glossy displays? Gee, it must be because they deliberately cheeped out and refused to use better technology (because they don't care about the consumer!). On and on and on and on... you just keep droning the same garbage over and over and over, just substituting different topics, but always with the same general approach.
And for clarification, "I don't think no such thing" means "I do think such a thing."
Ok- so now, I see, my "bias differs from post to post". And I'm laughable you say.
Good try though. And try to be a little more factual next time. LATER.
Ok- so now, I see, my "bias differs from post to post". And I'm laughable you say.
Good try though. And try to be a little more factual next time. LATER.
"Bias is a term used to described a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective", I think he did a pretty good job of demonstrating your bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
He was stating that you have a bias in favor of explanations that involve impure motives on the part of others.
"Bias is a term used to described a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective", I think he did a pretty good job of demonstrating your bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
He was stating that you have a bias in favor of explanations that involve impure motives on the part of others.
I can read.
I'm just stating facts- therefor no bias. If anyone states anything (not even particularly factual) against Miscrosoft, Palm or Rim, on the other hand, that's considered non biased on here which is pretty pitiful actually.
And for future reference, I wouldn't be posting links from Wiki for definitions. I would use something a trifle more accurate like Webster's- just so you know.
On a related note, I'm looking forward to seeing what Apple's new/second campus will look like.
P.S. Won't it be funny (ironic) if 50 years from now (for those of us that are still alive) if people are having the exact same discussion about someone wanting to tear down Steve Jobs' house and someone else wanting to preserve it!
Personally I'd love to see what Steve Jobs' dream house will look like. Will it be all modern? More traditional? he's got a family who will likely have some say in all of it.
On a related note, I'm looking forward to seeing what Apple's new/second campus will look like.
P.S. Won't it be funny (ironic) if 50 years from now (for those of us that are still alive) if people are having the exact same discussion about someone wanting to tear down Steve Jobs' house and someone else wanting to preserve it!
Well he actually owns the $9mil glass cube on Fifth Avenue store and will take it with him if that helps fuel your imagination.
Well he actually owns the $9mil glass cube on Fifth Avenue store and will take it with him if that helps fuel your imagination.
Maybe. I kinda assume it will be quite modern in design. But maybe not. Sometimes I think we all have something of a caricature of Steve Jobs built up in our minds and that he could truly surprise us all. Assuming of course anyone will ever get to take any pictures of it.
I can read.
I'm just stating facts- therefor no bias. If anyone states anything (not even particularly factual) against Miscrosoft, Palm or Rim, on the other hand, that's considered non biased on here which is pretty pitiful actually.
And for future reference, I wouldn't be posting links from Wiki for definitions. I would use something a trifle more accurate like Webster's- just so you know.
From Random House Dictionary:
"bi-as: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."
And from American Heritage Dictionary:
"A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."
E.g. a tendency to favor "explanations that involve impure motives on the part of others".
Don't worry, I'm sure the next 50 threads on the iPhone will be coming.
Thanks for spelling it out. Next let's see why he got his new liver so fast. According to the doctors he played by the rules, meaning he was extremely sick (metastatic cancer). However Apple says he just had a hormonal imbalance. Did he cut to the front of the list because he is (as you say) SFJ?
OK I'm like so stupid here. Exactly what is my bias?
Um, your bias is against anything Apple and anyone who likes what the company makes. I've only been here a few months and it's perfectly clear that you hate everything about Apple based on your posts. Above are just a few from this thread alone.
If you are not "biased" against Apple, it sure doesn't show in any of your posts. You seem to constantly bitch and complain about everything Apple does, including the fact that AI dares to run a bunch of iPhone stories in the weeks following a new iPhone launch. Perhaps you think you are providing a counterpoint to the Apple "fanboys" you also constantly complain about, but, it's like chastising U2 fans on a U2 fan site.
Give it a rest already.
Um, your bias is against anything Apple and anyone who likes what the company makes. I've only been here a few months and it's perfectly clear that you hate everything about Apple based on your posts. Above are just a few from this thread alone.
If you are not "biased" against Apple, it sure doesn't show in any of your posts. You seem to constantly bitch and complain about everything Apple does, including the fact that AI dares to run a bunch of iPhone stories in the weeks following a new iPhone launch. Perhaps you think you are providing a counterpoint to the Apple "fanboys" you also constantly complain about, but, it's like chastising U2 fans on a U2 fan site.
Give it a rest already.
Um?
You are completely mistaken. I don't hate everything about Apple. And if you averaged out the percentage of iPhone threads throughout the year you would see exactly what I meant. i may even buy an iPhone next week, now that it has all the features I've wanted for the past 2 years and the reviews it been receiving. I cxan deal with the AT&T issue as the "seem" to be in the process of upgrading as well- finally.
You really should read my posts and not just what the "fanboys' have said about me.
Just because I don't automatically go bananas for anything and everything "Apple", does not a hater make.
From Random House Dictionary:
"bi-as: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."
And from American Heritage Dictionary:
"A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."
E.g. a tendency to favor "explanations that involve impure motives on the part of others".
And I'm none of the above.