See Manziel, Johnny...some of those guys lack inteligence. That one is going from bad to worse to disaster in a hurry, and seemingly doesn't care at all.
OT: The Newer OT Thread III and Lounge
- Thread starter Nunymare
- Start date
- Status
See Manziel, Johnny...some of those guys lack inteligence. That one is going from bad to worse to disaster in a hurry, and seemingly doesn't care at all.
This is the dumbest comment I have read in a while. I'm not walking outside when it's -20. If pedestrians would pay attention to and follow signage like drivers are expected to then it wouldn't be a problem.
Personally, pedestrians getting hit because they are on their phones and walking through red lights with their head down is a form of natural selection in my eyes.
would be fun if they actually accepted any form of payment. pay with chickens or by reciting bad poetry.
joestevens29
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2009
- 54,051
- 17,176
It's pathetic the worse is these guys get a real damn good chance to better themselves with 4 years of college and this is the kind of stupidty we see. At least for a guy like Manziel he has the money(for now), but I always wonder about the guys that never make it. What kind of gutter life do they end up living because they are stupid, pissed away a college education and weren't good enough to make a living off the sport.
joestevens29
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2009
- 54,051
- 17,176
Few things from the news that have caught my eye;
Ryan Reynolds, always been indifferent on the guy but sure like what he did with that kid that just passed. It's one thing to step up and make a kids dream come true, but to continue to keep in touch after it's something you rarely hear about. Good on Ryan for doing something so little but with a huge impact for someone.
Earls, I never order beef from you but I will not be coming back. I don't know what it is as I buy other products from other countries even though we produce them here in Alberta or Canada, but **** with beef and I'll boycott you.
Chyna, as a manager and friend why in the **** would you be so concerned about a contract to get on tv to do an intervention? It just baffles me of the stupidity of people when it comes to money.
Ryan Reynolds, always been indifferent on the guy but sure like what he did with that kid that just passed. It's one thing to step up and make a kids dream come true, but to continue to keep in touch after it's something you rarely hear about. Good on Ryan for doing something so little but with a huge impact for someone.
Earls, I never order beef from you but I will not be coming back. I don't know what it is as I buy other products from other countries even though we produce them here in Alberta or Canada, but **** with beef and I'll boycott you.
Chyna, as a manager and friend why in the **** would you be so concerned about a contract to get on tv to do an intervention? It just baffles me of the stupidity of people when it comes to money.
fancy dan
too many losing
- Jun 21, 2011
- 1,028
- 428
separate the pedestrian from the motorist (including concrete trucks)
I'm talking about a paradigm shift in mentality, and in changing the way we look at and build cities. moving away from a car-centric model. reducing urban sprawl, making things walkable, improving public transit.
as mentioned before, build cities around the pedestrian not the car.
the mentality that "i'm not walking outside when it's -20" must change also, and we must look to Scandinavian models for proof that people can live in "extreme climates" and not be shackled to cars.
north americans have become too comfortable with their cars, and that attitude must change.
to the guy who wrote about widening major arteries to reduce traffic, taking measures like this has literally the opposite outcome you're suggesting. urban planners refer to this as the "field of dreams" approach.... "if you build it, they will come".
these are controversial topics, that people aren't ready to hear. i'm imagining a world inherently different than the one we're currently living in.
what are you doing to make this happen?
are you leading or waiting for someone to blaze a path for you to follow?
fancy dan
too many losing
- Jun 21, 2011
- 1,028
- 428
My answer is still no. This is not a feasible "model" for most people. I don't care what they do in Scandinavia. This is Canada and the city infrastructure does not come anywhere near close to supporting my transportation needs. I pay a premium to drive a vehicle and have the freedom of comfort and convenience.
The only mindset that needs to change is yours. Move to Sweden if you don't like it. You are the minority.
Philly85*
I Ain't Even Mad
- Mar 28, 2009
- 15,845
- 3
Fixed to Ruin
Come wit it now!
wasn't much of an attack.
just so many people talk about how society must make these huge changes but all the do it talk a big game on the keyboard.
they never mention community groups they've started that we could join, talk about how they advocate in the community and to city hall, any personal sacrifices they've made to walk the walk, etc.
they never seem to mention the cost and have a plan of how we can actually pay for it. and as for the "Scandinavian model", how big are those countries compared to Canada? what's the population density?
I'm sorry. if someone wants me to make a paradigm shift, I need more than buzz words and enviro-warrior talk.
Replacement*
Checked out
hmmm
"The environment" of Canada takes a calendar year to cross using conventional means of river, portage, wagon wheels. Good luck getting anything, and particularly foodstuffs to coasts and market.
The fact of the matter is Canada is huge, 2nd largest country on Earth and with one of the lowest population densities on Earth. Effective transportation in such a country is not optional.
Short of not settling this land from coast to coast at all we are dependent on motorized transport and conveyance of some nature. Short of a meager nomadic existence scraping by on what subsistence is naturally occurring in this fauna this land would support maybe 350K people instead of 100X that and exponentially increasing.
To all the environmentalists that want to bomb us back into the stone age try selling the ethics of maintaining a strident simplistic no footprint existence in this land on an overpopulated planet of over 6Billion with Canada representing approx. 10% of the worlds land mass. I guess to environmentalists its just better if Canada doesn't produce and isn't a significant break basket for the world. just let a few Billion starve I guess in the name of environmental progress..
harpoon
Registered User
- Dec 23, 2005
- 14,600
- 12,468
Little surprising to see the extent of the opposition generated by mossy's rather tame post. How is he wrong to suggest that getting people out of cars is a good thing? He never said it was something that is entirely feasible right now, but how is it something we shouldn't be working toward? And finally, he didn't blame anyone for driving, unlike most of the respondents who have blamed him harshly.
He's right to say that city planning really amounts to little more than filling in the spaces between the roads. And he's right to suggest that living in a place designed to accommodate pollution machines rather than humans is not ideal. And he's right to say that options exist if the will is there. So why the put down responses?
Of course there are geographical and environmental factors in Canada that make a personal automobile a necessity for many Canadians. But as far as I can see in his post he never disputed any of that. It was just a wish for fewer cars and a more healthy lifestyle.
I think its a wonder that more people wouldn't be supportive of that idea in theory at least. I think the opposition has to do with factors totally unrelated to the excuses (cold, far etc) people tend to make. I suppose that it has a lot to do with the fact that many people view their car as a great big extension of their appendage, or an advertisement of their (relative) wealth and success in life. Kind of sad when you stop and think about it.
And yes, before someone asks, I am walking the walk. I own a car but I choose to seldom use it. I make a choice to frequent shops and establishments that are within a reasonable distance. Most of the year I ride my bicycle. When its cold I walk or use the subway system. I don't get fanatical about doing that or anything and I obviously use my car when I have large packages or groups of friends etc. And most importantly, I don't attack or verbally abuse my friends and neighbors who choose to use their cars to drive ten minutes down the road day after day.
The trend toward urbanization is undeniable. As cities grow larger we have a duty to stop catering to the automobile and start thinking about the quality of life for citizens.
Finally, I can't resits asking (given the recent discussion on the evils of tobacco) how many cigarettes would your average smoker need to smoke (standing twenty steps from any doorway, of course) in order to equal the amount of air pollution pumped out by the the guy with two healthy legs driving his car to the supermarket ten minutes down the road, and leaving it idling in his wife's charge while he 'runs in' to grab a case of beer?
He's right to say that city planning really amounts to little more than filling in the spaces between the roads. And he's right to suggest that living in a place designed to accommodate pollution machines rather than humans is not ideal. And he's right to say that options exist if the will is there. So why the put down responses?
Of course there are geographical and environmental factors in Canada that make a personal automobile a necessity for many Canadians. But as far as I can see in his post he never disputed any of that. It was just a wish for fewer cars and a more healthy lifestyle.
I think its a wonder that more people wouldn't be supportive of that idea in theory at least. I think the opposition has to do with factors totally unrelated to the excuses (cold, far etc) people tend to make. I suppose that it has a lot to do with the fact that many people view their car as a great big extension of their appendage, or an advertisement of their (relative) wealth and success in life. Kind of sad when you stop and think about it.
And yes, before someone asks, I am walking the walk. I own a car but I choose to seldom use it. I make a choice to frequent shops and establishments that are within a reasonable distance. Most of the year I ride my bicycle. When its cold I walk or use the subway system. I don't get fanatical about doing that or anything and I obviously use my car when I have large packages or groups of friends etc. And most importantly, I don't attack or verbally abuse my friends and neighbors who choose to use their cars to drive ten minutes down the road day after day.
The trend toward urbanization is undeniable. As cities grow larger we have a duty to stop catering to the automobile and start thinking about the quality of life for citizens.
Finally, I can't resits asking (given the recent discussion on the evils of tobacco) how many cigarettes would your average smoker need to smoke (standing twenty steps from any doorway, of course
) in order to equal the amount of air pollution pumped out by the the guy with two healthy legs driving his car to the supermarket ten minutes down the road, and leaving it idling in his wife's charge while he 'runs in' to grab a case of beer?
McPuritania
LucicDestroyedHaley
We need big thinkers in this world. We'll never hit the next phase of civilization without it.
Little surprising to see the extent of the opposition generated by mossy's rather tame post. How is he wrong to suggest that getting people out of cars is a good thing? He never said it was something that is entirely feasible right now, but how is it something we shouldn't be working toward? And finally, he didn't blame anyone for driving, unlike most of the respondents who have blamed him harshly.
He's right to say that city planning really amounts to little more than filling in the spaces between the roads. And he's right to suggest that living in a place designed to accommodate pollution machines rather than humans is not ideal. And he's right to say that options exist if the will is there. So why the put down responses?
Of course there are geographical and environmental factors in Canada that make a personal automobile a necessity for many Canadians. But as far as I can see in his post he never disputed any of that. It was just a wish for fewer cars and a more healthy lifestyle.
I think its a wonder that more people wouldn't be supportive of that idea in theory at least. I think the opposition has to do with factors totally unrelated to the excuses (cold, far etc) people tend to make. I suppose that it has a lot to do with the fact that many people view their car as a great big extension of their appendage, or an advertisement of their (relative) wealth and success in life. Kind of sad when you stop and think about it.
And yes, before someone asks, I am walking the walk. I own a car but I choose to seldom use it. I make a choice to frequent shops and establishments that are within a reasonable distance. Most of the year I ride my bicycle. When its cold I walk or use the subway system. I don't get fanatical about doing that or anything and I obviously use my car when I have large packages or groups of friends etc. And most importantly, I don't attack or verbally abuse my friends and neighbors who choose to use their cars to drive ten minutes down the road day after day.
The trend toward urbanization is undeniable. As cities grow larger we have a duty to stop catering to the automobile and start thinking about the quality of life for citizens.
Finally, I can't resits asking (given the recent discussion on the evils of tobacco) how many cigarettes would your average smoker need to smoke (standing twenty steps from any doorway, of course
Fantastic post, kudos.
Replacement*
Checked out
Well, I think one would have to live here and live with the endless decades long refutations of pipe lines, highways, freight efficiency, etc and the power of lobbyists in places around the country stopping industy in Alberta in its tracks to see the frustration. Our money is fine when its transfer payments. But oh wait, that's an unintended shutdown on that pipeline.
So what you're no doubt catching is the absolute frustration of Albertans in this moment in time. We're made to think we have the worst carbon footprint, excess, environmental record etc, with criticism emanating from The City of Montreal while they pump raw sewage in the ST Lawrence. While bemoaning the environmental catastrophe of pipelines (while importing all their oil and gas from the middle east resulting in worst possible environmental tragedy shipping it across Atlantic and through the St Lawrence freeway in huge tankers.
anyway..
Well, the one thing that isn't limited here is space. Theres no premium here on land. Really lets be clear here too. How many people bemoaning suburbs play such things as Golf with 120 Golf courses in the Edmonton area taking up as much space as most cities. Not exactly environmentally friendly either as the pesticides and herbicides the average golf course uses and the runoff thereof is worse than the average neighborhood footprint. Next, how many people living in those nice environmentally friendly downtowns ski? With Skiing resulting in massive clearcutting of mountains even within Unesco National Parks and no fretting ever about that. Because hey, Golfing and Skiing is cool.
Next, this is an industrial economy. From a health pov it is actually prudent to have industrial pollution and industry somewhat separated from a cities downtown. Being that this is an industrial and industry service hub, and that the vast majority of our economic livelihood is located in outlying areas far from the downtown (as it should be) a lot of people living in outlying areas actually travel LESS distance commuting to these areas then they would if they were living concentrically around a downtown where jobs and much more limited. Note as well that an industrial economic hub anyway requires very similar roads, highways, freight lines, as occur anyway with sprawl. In otherwords we would have for instance the Henday, anyway, and its the actual reason it was built. Servicing industry, not sprawl. Although convenient for anti sprawl critics to ignore that.
Next, Alberta's substrate here is clay with topping of loam soil. There is no bedrock here near suface, meaning that the building of high density towers/ condos require inordinate concrete pilings and enormous amounts of concrete to provide stability for the erection of towers. With cement, lime being outsourced and shipped in here from the Rocky Mountains as it is not locally occurring. So reliance on high density buildings, and the concrete and steel required in their fabrication (steel also outsourced and shipped here from as far away as Korea quite often) furthers a reliance on materials that require significant shipping and in the case of Cement further the ongoing assault on the front ranges of our Rocky Mountains. With this for instance happening mere miles from Banff National Park.
Conversely, sprawl, and individual housing or walk ups involve primarily woodframe construction with lumber being plentiful here and an actual renewable resource.
Certainly have no issue with that and I live a one car or no car lifestyle and have commuted to work by bike in this climate. I also KEEP any vehicle I have had for as long as possible and have driven the same vehicles for as much as a dozen years. But my lower auto footprint is countered by the usual disaster capitalism model that preaches excess at every turn and wants people to believe vehicles are disposable and should be traded in every year..Or that markets such things as skidoos, snowmobiles, power boats, ATV's Jeeps, offroading etc ect. in Activities not only burning needless fossil fuels but ruining habitat wherever this offroading takes place.
Also, just a sidebar, but multiple Canadian environmentalists here have no difficulty telling people to limit their carbon footprint, limit their reliance on vehicles and fossil fuels while owning and racing F! cars and jetsetting all over the planet when they are not living in their several mansions located in environmentally sensitive areas...
I agree but this is marketed as well as the philosophy and I'm somewhat resigned that "he who has the most toys wins" has trumped the marketplace in this lifetime. Nor are younger consumers off the hook either. No age cohort ever has patterned reliance on as many electronic gadgets and tech toys and with virtually all of these being obsolete and ending up being inherently disposable. With most of them adding a very harmful toll on the environment from manufacturing, to disposal.
Ah yes, the Subway system. Vastly overengineered systems still requiring energy, but with intensive initial outlay in construction which end up servicing the same sprawl anyway. Should also mention prohibitively expensive and require a lot of disaster capitalism for funding. Plus all that clean energy which is usually hydroelectric/Nuclear..
Plus companies like Bombardier require endless bailouts (more disaster capitalism funding needed) to equip those shiny prohibitively expensive LRT trains.BRT's are probably a much better idea than subways or rapid transit. Also much more adaptable.
Last edited:
fancy dan
too many losing
- Jun 21, 2011
- 1,028
- 428
Little surprising to see the extent of the opposition generated by mossy's rather tame post. How is he wrong to suggest that getting people out of cars is a good thing? He never said it was something that is entirely feasible right now, but how is it something we shouldn't be working toward? And finally, he didn't blame anyone for driving, unlike most of the respondents who have blamed him harshly.
He's right to say that city planning really amounts to little more than filling in the spaces between the roads. And he's right to suggest that living in a place designed to accommodate pollution machines rather than humans is not ideal. And he's right to say that options exist if the will is there. So why the put down responses?
Of course there are geographical and environmental factors in Canada that make a personal automobile a necessity for many Canadians. But as far as I can see in his post he never disputed any of that. It was just a wish for fewer cars and a more healthy lifestyle.
I think its a wonder that more people wouldn't be supportive of that idea in theory at least. I think the opposition has to do with factors totally unrelated to the excuses (cold, far etc) people tend to make. I suppose that it has a lot to do with the fact that many people view their car as a great big extension of their appendage, or an advertisement of their (relative) wealth and success in life. Kind of sad when you stop and think about it.
And yes, before someone asks, I am walking the walk. I own a car but I choose to seldom use it. I make a choice to frequent shops and establishments that are within a reasonable distance. Most of the year I ride my bicycle. When its cold I walk or use the subway system. I don't get fanatical about doing that or anything and I obviously use my car when I have large packages or groups of friends etc. And most importantly, I don't attack or verbally abuse my friends and neighbors who choose to use their cars to drive ten minutes down the road day after day.
The trend toward urbanization is undeniable. As cities grow larger we have a duty to stop catering to the automobile and start thinking about the quality of life for citizens.
Finally, I can't resits asking (given the recent discussion on the evils of tobacco) how many cigarettes would your average smoker need to smoke (standing twenty steps from any doorway, of course
yep. do something. (excellent post)
Everyone that is anti-vehicle has still not proposed a single solution. Saying change is needed and then offering no solutions accomplishes nothing.
I live in the West end and work on the North East side of the city. There is no compromise.
I live in the West end and work on the North East side of the city. There is no compromise.
harpoon, puritania, mossy. all you've done is regurgitate that change is needed.
nobody is arguing that.
we're just waiting for practical ideas how, considering the size of the country and that you'll have to find the money to make it happen. do you guys believe in the leap manifesto as other than a talking point?
for example. do you believe
•Shifting swiftly away from fossil fuels so that Canada gets 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources within 20 years and is entirely weaned off fossil fuels by 2050.
nobody is arguing that.
we're just waiting for practical ideas how, considering the size of the country and that you'll have to find the money to make it happen. do you guys believe in the leap manifesto as other than a talking point?
for example. do you believe
•Shifting swiftly away from fossil fuels so that Canada gets 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources within 20 years and is entirely weaned off fossil fuels by 2050.
Replacement*
Checked out
Agreed. So far all that's been stated is vague suggestions of "paradigm shift", new thinking required, less reliance on autos, even the build freeways and people will come theory was evoked.
Yet what ARE the alternatives? In my previous very long post I mentioned that it is essential in any industrial based economy to separate out factories and industry from where people live in great concentration. To avoid health impacts, pollutants, noise, and esthetically this is a given. Nobody usually wants to be living right next to industrial smokestacks. So roads, freeways, highways are still a given and with landmass existing between a cities downtown and its industrial outlying areas. to wit, exactly what Edmonton is.
What is going to service people getting to and fro. More LRT systems that are not as green as alleged and that are construction/cost intensive and servicing cost intensive?
lets keep in mind mossy joes first foray into the thread was about pedestrians getting run over. In the OP case where these pavement traffic lights are being tested its to prevent people getting run over by commuter trains. That you know, are being used to prevent people driving/getting run over by autos..
So what alternatives. Rapid transit is a poor one and its interesting that even more than in the case of roadways that LRT lines anywhere are associated with INCREASING patterns of sprawl rather than curbing that sprawl. They not even result in sprawl they tend to push sprawl out and increase cost of property in outlying areas. Rapid transit line density is arguably worse than vehicle oriented sprawl as transit sprawl takes place in concentrations around lines, tod's and in a webbed pattern with only areas near the line being primarily developed whereby auto oriented sprawl allows more use of all the outlying areas. So are either good options?
Vancouver has been a perfect example of this phenomenon with outlying areas anywhere from Burnaby, coquitlam, Richmond, New Westminster, even Surrey all increasing in cost concurrent to projection/completion of lines and Skytrain stations. Even far off places like Port Moody, not too recently an industrial area and cheap place to live for the working class is now becoming the abode of mansion/yacht owners as first WEst Coast express, now a Skytrain line services living in this outlying (and also environmentally sensitive area) Nor are these being modest developments in sprawl. Huge honking houses, palatial mansions all serviced by more Rapid transit aided and abetted sprawl. The reality is that in the lower mainland is that Skytrain lines have been a sprawl land speculators dream. Pushing huge developments everywhere in the environmentally sensitive lower mainland.
Even places like Mission BC have exponentially increased in population and sprawl area due to being serviced by West Coast express trains.
Arguments can be made as I have that alternatives to the auto have increased sprawl into further outlying areas than people would be willing to drive commute to. Vancouver picture perfectly demonstates this theory. In spades. Build it and they will come indeed. Why is that motto only applied to freeways/highways?
Last edited:
The Head Crusher
Re-retired
Speaking of fires, last week a trestle bridge in Mayorthorpe was burned, and they have now laided charges on a 19 year old volunteer firefighter.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/albert...-19-charged-with-18-counts-of-arson-1.2882656
joestevens29
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2009
- 54,051
- 17,176
Lets hope not. What a disaster that was
This is just a screwed up story. Embarrassing for the family who are quite active in the community. Good thing they caught him though
Last edited:
- Status
