The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! - Page 506

crazycrazydoesdoes · #**10101** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 2:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Nah you two are trying to twist my original point to save face lol. Selfie analogy

Me: Vancouver is the only major city on this forum where no one has ever defended a skyline photo with "oh, that's the bad angle", "missing half the skyline", etc
"Only Val never makes a fuss about the lighting in her selfies =)"

Ramako: The photo you quoted is the best shot of Vancouver I've ever seen, but since you insist on inviting a comparison, I personally think Vancouver's is the only major skyline in the country that only has a couple of impressive angles, since it looks like a flat green glass blob from most sides. But hey, that's just like my opinion man.
"Oh, that lighting in that picture makes Val look sooo good... but since you brought it up I think she's ugly, no offense"

Me: the people who always say "that's the bad angle" of their city's skyline pics, are usually the same ones who say of other cities' skyline pics "that's the best angle yet!"
"Nice backhand! And of course you'd be offended cuz you fuss over the lighting in your selfies!"

Ramako: It takes a special kind of insecurity to (i) essentially boast about one's city objectively having the best skyline (which I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone on this forum do); then (ii) attack others for pointing out that - horror of all horrors - it's not also their favourite skyline.
"Gosh you have to be really insecure to call Val the hottest and attack me for disagreeing"

Me: Oh please, how many times have we seen "Toronto #1, Calgary #2, etc", or "Wrong, your city has the best setting" And it's totally ok. Objectively... Vancouver has tons of bad angles.
"No one said she's the hottest! And haven't we told you enough times that you're a 10/10 and that she's a 6/10 at best and only because of her boobs lol?"

This is all very weird, but I thought the metaphor for "natural beauty" was particularly clever

isaidso · #**10102** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 3:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkoshvilli

Jeez, theres like 20 lexus ads on that one building.

Made you look didn't it? Repetition is proven to be effective in moving advertising from back ground, to noticed, to brand recognition in ones consciousness. That's why they do it.

Rico Rommheim · #**10103** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkoshvilli

Jeez, theres like 20 lexus ads on that one building.

Well are you gonna buy 20 Lexi or what?

dleung · #**10104** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramako

dleung, I had interpreted your initial comment - that nobody thinks Vancouver has a bad angle - as some kind of claim that Vancouver has an objectively superior skyline. That's what I took issue with, and that's why I responded the way I did. If your only point was that Vancouverites, in contrast to other Canadians, don't have the impetus or feel any need to defend their city's skyline for whatever reason, I can't speak to that. Frankly it's not a subject that's ever really crossed my mind. Preach on if it suits you.

That's probably as close to a retraction as I can hope for, so I'll take it lol. While I'm still preaching... another thing Vancouverites never do - despite the city having by far the highest proportion of demolition and infill projects - is use the word "filler"

shappy · #**10105** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 12:09 PM**

Thanks for pointing all this out, dleung. I'd just like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and your fellow Vancouverite forumers on a job well done. You are a shining beacon and an inspiration to us all.

TorontoDrew · #**10106** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 12:18 PM**

Isn't dleung the best! lol Do you think his done high jacking yet another thread with his crap?

TorontoDrew · #**10107** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 12:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

/\ I never get tired of those.

Ya tilt shift photos are fun.

TorontoDrew · #**10108** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 12:48 PM**

double post

WhipperSnapper · #**10109** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 2:31 PM**

0

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

That's probably as close to a retraction as I can hope for, so I'll take it lol. While I'm still preaching... another thing Vancouverites never do - despite the city having by far the highest proportion of demolition and infill projects - is use the word "filler"

Cool per capita... now, now let's not get all Calgarian on us. Love to see some stats though. I know how much you hate anecdotes.

Now that I think about it, most projects here would be classified as renos. Save a wall; save a small fortune on development charges.

Such a snob. What so offensive about the word "infill"? Toronto's planners use it. They also use metric. That must bother you too.

(keep losing wifi)

SkahHigh · #**10110** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:07 PM**

Magnificient by Fred Plante, sur Flickr

TorontoDrew · #**10111** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:08 PM**

lol Also this is kind of funny.

November 7th 2015 page 401 of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

Don't give a rats ass about this mousquet guy, but yea this forum is thin skinned. We associate criticism with negativity rather than an aspiration for better, and water down the significance of good buildings by complimenting crap buildings with consolation prizes such as "filler", "density booster", etc...

Seems like he likes the term filler as much as anybody else. Putting quotation marks around it doesn't make it not your word. To give him the benefit of the doubt like he was actually "quoting" someones use of the word fill I went back 10 pages and it's not mentioned once before his prior November rant. lol funny stuff.

So the last person to use the word "filler" ( other then me now damn it) was dleung on November 7th 2015 page 401 of this thread.