Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know why you have to insert nasty remarks on SJ into everything directed at people who see some flaw in San Francisco. Leave that crap to Alexus.
Yes I am pretty effective I admit. Thanks for giving me the power to get under YOUR skin.
Also, my comments about SJ (good and bad) have nothing to do with SF or anyone's criticism of SF. I've said before that SJ doesn't belong in the same sentence with SF and I meant that. When speaking of SJ, it is very relevant that possibly its biggest selling point is its proximity to SF. Oh yeah, the weather is nice too. Can't forget that.
Concerning nasty remarks about SJ, why is this wrong if they are true? Only a psuedo-intellectual San Jose person with their super inferiority complex would attempt to "correct" someone's accurate negative perceptions and opinions of SJ over an internet message board.
4. psuedo-intellectuals
People who believe they are extremely intelligent and desire everyone to know it. In actuality they are generally ignorant and close minded.
Now, how about those SJ Ugg boots and scraggly beards?
nice. hsw is going to come up and here and put SJ and SF in it's place.
We all fly to LA and Vegas on the weekends!
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdy1985
This thread reminds me of a older brother (SF) who keeps punking his little brother (SJ) even after the littler brother outgrow the older brother.
Eh, they do it to everyone. SJ isn't alone. Many on the SF forum seem to be generally polite, though. Alexus (is that a man's name?) seems to be here for attention and jman just takes everything the wrong way. Overall, I don't think relations are as bitter as exhibited in this thread.
And SJ and SF should bow down to the all powerful PA (Palo Alto)!
Quote:
Eh, they do it to everyone. SJ isn't alone. Many on the SF forum seem to be generally polite, though. Alexus (is that a man's name?) seems to be here for attention and jman just takes everything the wrong way. Overall, I don't think relations are as bitter as exhibited in this thread.
Football is played almost exclusively in this country.
On the professional level, yes, but not entirely. This is from Wikipedia, just fyi:
"In the UK, 46 teams play in the British American Football League. In Mexico, the ONEFA is a college league with 26 teams in 3 conferences. It is the most important championship in Latin America. In Japan, the X-League is a professional league with 60 teams in four divisions, using promotion and relegation. After the post-season playoffs, the X-League champion is determined in the Japan X Bowl. There are also over 200 universities fielding teams, with the national collegiate championship determined by the Koshien Bowl. The professional and collegiate champions then face each other in the Rice Bowl to determine the national champion.
In Germany, the German Football League whose elite division is called Bundesliga, has 12 teams partitioned into north and south conferences. The finalists from the playoffs determine the German champion during the German Bowl.
In Hungary, 18 registered teams participate in a the MAFL's two division league structure. The sport has grown significantly since 2004 and with some top Division I teams participating in the CEFL.
In Norway, div I consists of only two teams, Oslo Vikings and Eidsvoll 1814's. These two teams also compete in the European Football League but they play an annual game for the Norwegian Championship title. Norway has seven other teams that play in div II and this division is looked upon as the Norwegian Football League.
The International Federation of American Football is the governing body for American football with 45 member associations from North and South America, Europe, Asia and Oceania. The IFAF also oversees the American Football World Cup, which is held every four years. Japan won the first two World Cups, held in 1999 and 2003. Team USA, which had not participated in the previous World Cups, won the title in 2007."
American Football is played outside of US borders more than most would commonly know. I agree that hockey is more of an international sport, which is why I emphasized basketball in my post, but I doubt the poster I responded to had any idea of the existence of these American Football leagues. He didn't sound like much of a sports fan to begin with. I just wanted to shed some light on how international football has become. Aside from what was mentioned above, I believe there are a total of 4 American Football leagues in Britain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk
Meanwhile the NHL is currently 33.3% non-North American. The NBA has only 76 total international players, and that even includes Canada and US territories. That's tame in comparison, but it still crushes football.
I wasn't really trying to make the case for football being so international so much as I was for basketball; I was mainly saying that in the US it is a MUCH bigger deal than hockey and that it has had growth outside of the US.
Basketball, however, is much more widely played throughout the globe. Its played on more continents and in more countries than hockey. I had also understood there to be many more international (non-North American) NBA players than NHL players. I was only going off my opinion and not hard facts, so if I was incorrect there I apologize for my mistake and will gladly retract that from my statement.
From Wikipedia (I'm not too interested in going more in depth with this so I'm using the easiest resource I can - feel free to correct me if you have more reputable sources), I've gotten that the NBA is televised in 212 nations in 42 languages while the NHL is only broadcast in North America, Europe and Australia. And in regards to its popularity in the US:
"The NHL is considered one of the four major professional sports leagues in the North America, along with Major League Baseball, the National Football League, and the National Basketball Association. In the US, hockey has the smallest total fan base of the four leagues, the smallest revenue from television, and the least sponsorship."
The NBA does only seem to have 67 players (from last year's roster) out of 432 total players that are not from either the US, Canada or any US possessions, counting for only 15.5% of the league, while the NHL figure you provided is good enough for me, so there I stand corrected.
I may have been incorrect on the total percentage or overall number of individual players that come from overseas and play in the NBA vs those in the NHL. But I do believe that I was correct in the actual point I was trying to make, in that there are players from a larger variety of countries that play in the NBA vs those that play in the NHL. That would essentially make the NBA more of a global league than the NHL in my eyes. But regardless of the differences in those 2 leagues, I definitely feel that basketball is played in more countries around the world than hockey is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk
Football will never even get close to the Olympics.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk
And for the record, I think I'm probably the biggest SJ homer here and even I try to stay somewhat grounded in reality. I don't know why you have to insert nasty remarks on SJ into everything directed at people who see some flaw in San Francisco. Leave that crap to Alexus. I think most in San Jose (at least the others in this thread) recognize faults here so they're not gonna fly off the handle when they're pointed out. The SF contingent has not been so mellow, on the other hand.
You may be one of the biggest SJ homers here, but bigdumb has you beat out on this thread as the biggest. At least you were able to give a balanced view instead of simply bashing SF. You do acknowledge faults in SJ as well as praise things of value that it has, so I consider your opinion worth listening to when it comes to your city.
As for not understanding why my nasty remarks were in place, they were for the same reason you or any other SJ defender had theirs for SF: retaliation. I didn't say anything I don't believe to be true, but I wouldn't have felt the need to speak on it had I not read his post. I realize you guys were put on the defensive here. But after reading Mr. Pretentious's post I had something to say back. I didn't attack you or the others for having negative criticism of SF; I thought my replies to you guys were civil. Just this last one was nasty, so I responded in kind. I didn't jump all over bigdumb for all his ignorant bashing.
No offense man, but Alexus's ability to push most of your buttons is extremely entertaining. That's what drew me back to that ridiculous post I'd just responded to.
nice. hsw is going to come up and here and put SJ and SF in it's place.
LOL great! You're right. This thread dragging on is nothing more than an invitation for his expert opinion. I can't wait to get my latest dose of those abbreviations that only he/she/it uses and how Palo Alto, Pacific Heights and LA's Westside are the most desirable locations on Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk
We all fly to LA and Vegas on the weekends!
Lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk
Eh, they do it to everyone. SJ isn't alone. Many on the SF forum seem to be generally polite, though. Alexus (is that a man's name?) seems to be here for attention and jman just takes everything the wrong way. Overall, I don't think relations are as bitter as exhibited in this thread.
I agree that relations overall are better than those exhibited by a few folks on here. But what did I take the wrong way here? Talking about your old post way earlier that we had an exchange on? I think you're plenty guilty of that same crime, let's be real. But what did I take the wrong way here that caused you to just mention my name?
I agree that relations overall are better than those exhibited by a few folks on here. But what did I take the wrong way here? Talking about your old post way earlier that we had an exchange on? I think you're plenty guilty of that same crime, let's be real. But what did I take the wrong way here that caused you to just mention my name?
I just meant that you take issue and reply with extremely verbose rebuttals. I mentioned your name because you represent the opposing (for lack of a better term) viewpoint here. That's all. Nothing harsh intended.
[quote=Radical347;8297816]The avenues are pretty gritty. (Not crime wise, but maintenance wise.) There are tar marks and cracks all over the sidewalk and roads. 2nd, 3rd, 4th, all the way down, you name it. Clement St. & Noriega St. have litter all over them day and night. All of Fillmore street from LPH up to around Washington smells like urine. Every single time I've gone there. It's also incredibly unpleasant to drive up, because traffic and hills aside, the streets are all bumpy and dilapated. I'll give you Seacliff because I've never actually been there. If you want to be that specific, you can have Ingleside Terrace too; it's clean but I didn't include that because IMO it's more of a sub-neighborhood than a neightborhood. If that's the case, yes, there are a number of areas of other neighborhoods that are clean, but not enough to consider the neighborhood clean overall. Noe Valley is just as dirty as the Richmond/Sunset/Castro/PH.
Okay the trash thing on Clement, Noriega and even Irving west of 19th I'll give you. The Chinese business districts tend to be like that. But the rest of the neighborhoods in the avenues, speaking on the residential parts, don't really have any trash to speak of. The tar marks I'm still not feeling you on, unless you're talking about tire tread marks from sideshows? I dunno, but I believe you if you said you've seen em. I just can't picture them in order to agree/disagree with you.
Your Fillmore St assessment is an exaggeration though. Maybe its been there at times when you are there (I'm not calling you a liar), but I don't really experience that smell much outside of downtown or the Mission corridor (from Embarcadero to Crocker Amazon). I know Fillmore from end to end, and I've never experienced any urine odor anywhere from LPH (say maybe Pine) to Chestnut. If you have, then that sucks. Now from LPH to Haight is a competely different story, and yes, that smell is prevelent in that area.
There are more clean neighborhoods that you probably think (Laurel Heights, residential Glen Park, residential Westportal, St. Francis Wood, etc.), but I feel ya on the dilapidated streets. Gotta disagree on Noe Valley though; aside from 24th or any other business part, the residential part is all decent. Same with Pacific Heights, Cow Hollow and the Marina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical347
San Francisco is supposed to be a big, world-class city, so by definition, we're supposed to get trendy, innovative things first or near-first or at the near-same time and we usually do. (i.e. Starbucks back in '92.) This doesn't mean that there's not room for "unique" things too, but putting a bunch of tacky subpar fro-yo joints that are based entirely off of the idea of Pinkberry and Red Mango is hardly unique and does more to ruin character and value than the highest-quality chains. SF people like their chains just as much as other people, they just like them relegated to certain areas. Which I'm fine with but not excluded altogether. (i.e. big department stores in Union Square, Starbucks in main shopping districts, Target in Daly City -- though this is a bit ridiculous because just about everyone I know, including the locals, goes to Daly City on a regular basis to go to Target.)
Totally agree on the Target thing. There's obviously a need for one or more in the City if there are 2 right across the freeway from each other and another 5 miles away. I've never tried Pinkberry and am not too big on frozen yogurt trends, but I did try that Froyo spot at Stonestown and it definitely sucked. I get what you're saying about how we should be getting all the trendy stuff in addition to whatever we have that is unique. I don't think we're lacking too much in that department, but maybe in a few areas like the froyo you mentioned and certain others. The big chain cookie cutter businesses you find in any suburb USA though (eg, Red Lobster, Outback, Home Depot, etc, etc) are really against SF's M.O. They've only weakened on their stance in recent years, like how they're finally possibly opening a Lowe's within city limits or the 2 Best Buys we already have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical347
Lol. I'm sorry people have been recommending that to you; I agree that place isn't the greatest (buffets usually aren't.) My favorites are Sui Tofu (they make all their stuff with homemade tofu; they also have beef blood soup which is so difficult to find in SF), Seoul Gomtang (everything made with momemade beef bone stock) both on El Camino Real and Tobang on Kiely Blvd.
Thank you for the suggestions! I will definitely check those out!
I just meant that you take issue and reply with extremely verbose rebuttals. I mentioned your name because you represent the opposing (for lack of a better term) viewpoint here. That's all. Nothing harsh intended.
No worries, no offense taken. I just thought I had been misunderstood again, which is the reason for my admittedly verbose rebuttals.
When I don't clarify my point, some people either miss my point or put words in my mouth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
