^As does your smug condescension and abusive posts laced with personal attacks and not proper debating technique, which is limited to counterpointing the facts of an argument not insults.
Your behaviour is even worse than those who have not seen the "real deal" with their own eyes. You claim to have inside information and instead of enlightening everyone with your superior knowledge, you berate them for not being informed. Which is partially your own fault because you won't divulge what you know.
That is called Narcissistic Tyranny. You keep your subjects uneducated and then laud it over them that they are ignorant, in order to inflate your own sense of self importance.
Let me introduce you to a concept known as Noblesse Oblige: The idea that those blessed with great wealth, social standing or knowledge, should (though generosity of spirit) be kind to those less fortunate.
So you see nothing wrong with clogging up multiple threads with silly complaints about buildings posters haven't seen, by architects for whom they have nothing but disdain? If you're insisting on "proper debating technique" why not call out Big Daddy for refusing to listen to those who have on several occasions politely informed him that what's in the document isn't final. He instead disregards 'the facts' and chooses to post long-winded, poorly-written orations informing all who care to listen of the impending doom. How is one supposed to 'counterpoint the facts' when none are presented?
Refer to marcus_a_j's post for an answer as to why many on UT cannot speak about projects on which they're working. To that point though, your suggestion that I 'berate' other forum members for not knowing what I know(?) is just plain wrong. I'd like to see some proof of this or you'll risk loosing credibility for lying.
I'm not even going to touch the paternalistic inferences of your final point, but in the end it's you that looks like a clown as you immediately jump to that sort of language after lecturing me about "smug condescension." Furthermore, you refuse to countenance the fact that few in your little 'aA-is-the-devil-and-therefore-we-don't-need-to-see-anything-because-it'll-just-suck' army have adhered to the posting procedure you lay out. Facts? Who needs em,' it's Clewes-less (tee-hee-hee) so why wait before releasing the Kraken?
That's good to know, but how can a developer get away with proposing a design in the site plan application that doesn't actually reflect the true design?
It's because you're applying for the right to build to certain dimensions and densities, not to build a particular building. Granted, the city does like knowing what's going up and insists that applications include line drawings, but the application itself primarily establishes that 'Building A' contains certain number of units and is of a certain size (among many other details). Beyond the design review panel, the city doesn't have much say over what developers and their architects can do aesthetically.
Oh, my post is “vituperation� What does that make your little diatribe?
I’ll admit I was a little over the top but really, if you believe you know something the rest of us don’t, why not clue us in? The reality is you don’t know anything more than the rest of us - and probably less - but would like make us think that you are somehow “connected†when truly you are not.
(good word though, "vituperation", who looked it up for you?)
My 'little diatribe' was an effort to drill the fact that you're passionately arguing against something about which you know nothing into your thick skull. The reality is that I
do know more than you and churlish remarks to the contrary only make you look like more of a buffoon. As I and numerous others have stated in this and the 40 Scott St. thread:
This. Is. Not. The. Final. Design.
Also granted (if you say so) but that should not mean his lack of civility and abusive nature should be condoned. His tenure should not entitle him to vitriolic rants at other members. No amount of seniority should bestow that privilege.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should all be civil here, but I won't be drowned by pusillanimous sycophancy and therefore won't hesitate to confront a member if he or she insists on making an uninformed opinion known. Again, I'd like some proof of said 'vitriolic rants' but since I know there's none, I'll just chalk that up to the 'ProjectEND berates other forum members' cavern of lies.
What you don't seem to get is that you gain respect by posting accurately, contributing as much as you can, and listening to those who want to share what they can about something they know. You're particular talent lies in producing those fantastic renders everyone loves so much. We all appreciate your hard work as few of us have your skill. Likewise, I would love to spill the beans about what 501 Yonge looks like, but the reality is that it's not my building and I therefore have to respect those whose design it is when they ask that I not divulge its form. I do share what I can and if you want some easy proof of this, check the first post in the Theater Park thread.
