How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

December 11, 2009 -

As the sordid details of Tiger Woods’ personal life continue to unfold in the national media the question arises: will Electronic Arts stick by their videogame cover boy?

While EA issued a statement a week ago saying that it wouldn’t dump Woods, the media frenzy surrounding Tiger’s transgressions continues to grow and more information is revealed seemingly everyday, all of which could influence EA’s stance.

A Forbes column contains the opinion that Tiger’s days are numbered as an EA spokesman, going so far as to say that “Tiger is done as a corporate pitchman” overall, regardless of what companies sticking by him are currently saying now.

The columnist also believes that the Tiger scandal will force companies to do full diligence on a spokesperson before choosing them:

…companies that throw big money at athletes are going to do a lot of research on them to make sure they are not phony (or make risk-adverse decisions based on information they do have) and funnel their endorsement dough at popular athletes whose image will not blow up.

Some of these athletes may not even be among the best in their field, but they will typically be in global sports and not be ticking time bombs.

Forbes writes that no other golfers carry enough buzz among consumers to fill Tiger’s shoes. Certainly however, EA could find a new PGA pro to build its game around if events warranted. Phil Mickelson might be the perfect choice, though he may need to work on his fist pump to take it to Tiger’s level.

What do you think? Should EA keep Tiger on board?


Comments

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

That doesn't change the fact that Fox, as biased as they are, are the only news organization reporting on this.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

They were also the only one reporting on the huge numbers of people at various protests.

Using footage from another event. And they've done it several times.

Yeah, I'm going to trust anything they say. I don't remember whether it was you or Austin, but upthread claiming to not trust anything when the data is suspect? Why do you trust it from Fox when they've been shown to be suspect?

 

 

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

I didn't get it from Fox.  I read the emails myself.  I read the source code for the CRU's programs myself.  I merely pointed out that liberal news agencies are neglecting to report on something newsworthy because it would put a black eye on the liberal agenda.  Instead, they're gossiping about Tiger Woods, because the average American cares more about whether or not a great golfer cheated on his wife than whether or not something that will actually affect their lives is based on bogus science.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Are you here to talk about something else you're uninformed about?
 

In a way, you should be thankful.  When so many have hardships in their lives you have plenty. Your cup runneth over with stupid. 

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Oh yeah speaking about a bunch of e-mails massaged to sound like there is a "conspiracy".

Please, I am one of the people who doesn't fully believe in global warming and I find the "climate-gate" thing beyond retarded, just like you. I do not believe in some scientific research about global warming because it is tainted with tree hugging liberals but I do not believe most of the crap from the global warming deniers because their research is also poltically tainted.

I am expecting your response filled with plagarism just like everything else you type here. You can't think on your own so you resort to steal someone else's work and massage it a bit to make it look like your own. Come on son bring something original to the table.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Maybe you should go read the link I posted.  You know, where these 'scientists' talk about dodging FOIA requests, cherry-picking data, and blackmailing scientific and academic journals to keep dissenting articles from being posted.

And I love how you've retreated from one argument you lost to another that you're going to lose, and go back to your 'plagarism' defense.  Apparently, if you don't know about it, no one else can, so, as a species, we must be pretty damn stupid if you're the most knowledgeable amongst us.

Just go sit in the corner, dumbass.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

 I have read those documents.  However, as a scientist I am in a better position to interpret what's going on that FOX news.

Here's a good analysis by another scientist.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Good read sir, by far one of the most balanced opinions I have read about this whole thing.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Did you read that article?  It wasn't balanced at all.  He said right away that he believes we should lower CO2, no matter the cost.  A person with that kind of belief isn't going to make an unbiased opinion.

---

He was dead when I got here.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Well we are partially to blame for it. Here is a hint on how to reduce CO2 gases. Control our cattle population. Cattles emmit more CO2 gases than anything else on the planet. No wait I like BBQ ribs.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

You know what else emits tons of CO2?  Volcanoes.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Those are natural events. The sheer population of catlle is man made since we use them as a food source.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

And a single large volcanic eruption can emit more CO2 than what mankind as made since they/we've discovered fire. Gee whiz... there have been how many of those in the last couple of decades?


Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

And your point is?  Please explain.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

If one volcanic eruption can put out more CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases than mankind has ever made, and there have been several in the last 30 years or so, one could think either nature has a way of dealing with it, or we haven't been making as much of an impact as previously/commonly thought.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Whe studies like those are made I am sure they are not putting Volcanic eruptions into account because this is planet earth at it's finest. Good point but this is a natural occurance. I don't think there is someone on lab coat looking to create a volcanic eruption anytime soon.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Well, there you go again, proving the point about us "skeptics."  There's pertinent data, just being cast aside because it doesn't give the scientists the end they're trying to get.  Which, by the way, isn't science.  Scientists are supposed to put their hangups at the door to the lab, and get what they get.  If they don't like their results, they need to make sure their results are accurate, and if they are, that hypothesis needs to change.  The emails and the computer source code from East Anglia prove that they intentionally changed the data to make their hypothesis look good.

---

He was dead when I got here.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Guess what, the Skeptics tend to dismiss data as well so it's like the kettle saying to the pot "you are black".

Yes you have a very valid point, scientists are supposed to collect their data no matter what. But to assume that all scientists on both sides of the fence do this it is simply an irresponsible thought. Both sides bring solid and valid points but as long as Ubber liberals and neo-cons keep duking it out trying to sway the opinions of the scientific community we may never know for sure who's right and who's wrong.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Umm, the skeptics aren't trying to keep the alarmists from publishing.  The skeptics aren't violating the law by ignoring FOI requests.  The skeptics aren't LYING ABOUT THIER RESEARCH.  Your pot/kettle reference holds no water here.

As to your second point, that's the whole reason why this is news-worthy but nobody is reporting it besides Fox.  The East Anglia researchers are OBVIOUSLY influenced by left-wing alarmism, as all of the emails blatantly suggest.  Therefore, the data they've collected, and all models using that data, need to be scrapped.  As long as there are scientists who are okay with what has happened, science will have a black eye.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

He lost all credibility when he began talking about the models they were running for the next 50 to 100 years.  Consider many things here: what the model was programmed to do, how it's run, how the history that generated the model was gotten (here's a hint; a lot of these models are based on fraudulent numbers from, you guessed it, EAST ANGLIA), and the fact that in order for these models to be correct, the same group of people who can't predict with greater than 50% accuracy the weather tomorrow would have to be right on every single theory.  In other words, the models aren't all that accurate either, which can be seen by the constant need for them to 'correct' their models after their models prove untrue, constant need to 'correct' the data put into the models, and the fact that these models haven't been right ONCE in the last twenty years.  Oh man, those are models I'll trust.

Surely you've read those documents.  I mean, as a scientist, I'm sure you can relate to people dodging Freedom of Information Act requests.  Oh wait; legitimate scientists aren't afraid to show their data, how it was gathered, how it was filtered, etc.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Contrary to what you're thinking, the basis for global warming info is not based on a single source, even assuming that the source is fraudulent as you say.  There are inquiries going on to determine that as we speak, but so far the explanations provided by officials seem satisfactory (to myself anyway, and to the scientific community seeing as they aren't doing much about it). 

Even if there is evidence of fraudulent activity, it would  not discount anything with regards to global warming.  You metnion in a post above that what is unsure is whether or not humans are influencing the climate change.  Fact: not a single national/international scientific entity known explicitly rejects global warming, that is, human infulenced climate change, and in fact most support it.  Whats "unsure" about it are politics and businesses that would suffer from policies implemented in its favor.  Science is not. The closest out there to a dissenting opinion anymore are a couple groups, such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (small wonder why they don't want to support it), that basically say "well okay, the planet is getting warmer and probably will continue to do so, but it could still be caused by something else".  In fact, that particular group was essentially forced to change its views on the topic about 2 years ago by its own member base, when it was the only dissenting force amongst scientific entities on the topic.

 

As for doging FOIA requests, I have seen nothing (as of yet, if someone's got something by all means link it) that says this actually occurred.  Maybe he wrote of his intention to do so, but to be honest I'd be more inclinced to think its just a guy getting overly defensive and putting up a front during a conversation with a trusted peer, that was never meant to be seen by others.  Tell me you haven't spouted BS to your friends about someone/something that you would never actually do/support.

You're making a mistake comparing the validity of a scientific model to your own personal experience.  In any case I dunno about you, but the weather forecasters around here aren't bad.  If they're wrong, its more like the rain didn't fall when they thought it would, its just the next town over that got hit instead, as opposed to forecasting rain and there not being a cloud in the sky all day. 

Individual weather instances are difficult to predict, as they require an absolute understanding of how changes in various variables affect the system as a whole.  We are still studying that, and our knowledge is by no means complete.  But just because we don't understand everything down to the fine details, does not mean that we can't get the big picture, science and theories are not an all-or-nothing affair. 

The fact that you make a categorical statement alone is enough for me to want to dismiss you entirely on this subject, honestly.  If you're going to go that far, post something to prove it.  Otherwise, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (note that I did not say proven wrong).  Furthermore, correcting models constantly shows that the scientific process is working as it should.  If it didn't change at all, despite all the new informaiton, thats when I would be worried.

Whether its your intention or not, particularly in light of my previous point above, after reading your various responses in this article, you really come across as someone who is biased against global warming to begin with, and are using this as an opportunity to chip at it, as if it were somehow damning of the entire process/theory.  I mean, you did read the guy's "house of cards" part in that article right?  You do at least have a basic understanding of how the scientific process works and theories are formed right?  If you're going to talk about credibility on a particular subject, and then turn around and talk like that, its game over man.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

You claim that a lot of liberal governments support man-made global warming.  How come there are a lot of SCIENTISTS that don't belive in man-made global warmng?  You know, since it's scientifically proven and all...oh, wait, it isn't.  It is theorized, but now, most of the scientific data supporting it is called into question.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

So you pretty much fall under page three of the article where he talks about Scientific Skepticism.

Me hate science... science baaaad.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?


Models are based on theories, and when the theories aren't right, the models aren't right.  For example, a bit more than half a century ago, models concerning how crime would rise or fall were based on various theories that described why crime occurred and what caused individuals to commit crime.  One of the theories used was biological positivism, which basically said that crime was due to one's features.  The model based on this theory suggested that people who looked a certain way (having some characteristics of the Neanderthal) would commit crime, and suggested that crime would rise as more people with these features emerged.  Obviously, that model was wrong, because the theory behind it was wrong, and the model failed to predict rises in crime or drops in crime.

The understanding that when a model is based on a theory that isn't correct, the model isn't correct, isn't skepticism.  It's common sense. When that theory is only supported by already faulty science, the model is, in its creation, faulty, and whatever the model says is worthless.  I could create a model, again, that says that those Neanderthal characteristics are responsible for rises in crime, but it'd be wrong because the theory was wrong, even though at the time of its creation, it was believed to be correct.

And as I said, these models are based on a number of variables that we [humanity] really know next to nothing about, and the models are based on theories that we [humanity] are unsure of.  These models assume that all those theories concerning how those variables interact and change temperatures are correct, and produces results based on that assumption. 

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

When a thoery is checked multiple times and the results are the same it cannot be considered a theory anymore (Like gravity for example). This can be applied to global warming as well but at the same time there are also be applied to several studies where samples of soil have been collected and on those samples there is evidence of similar weather events that happened several thousand years ago.

By the way just because you don't believe and/or understand these theories it doesn't mean they're not valid. You can't just dismiss information because don't have an understanding of the subject.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

The problem is that the studies have tainted information.  Therefore, all conclusions from those studies are suspect.  Are you really that dense?

---

He was dead when I got here.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Yes, these theories are so accurate, they're just like gravity, more a law than a theory.  Which is why those theories have successfully predicted the weather... oh wait.  They haven't.  They routinely fail to do so.

When the theories are faulty, the computer models are going to produce faulty results.  Just like the 'global cooling' models were faulty, so too were the 'global warming' models faulty, because they were both based on the same theories.  That's why they're calling it climate change now, because they realize that the climate is constantly changing, and they can hide behind that and no matter what happens, say 'See?  We knew it would change!'  Does the planet warm and cool?  Yes.  Do we have any idea why, what affects the temperature of the planet, what affects the movement of humidity around the planet, etc.?  No.

We don't really know how all these variables come together and change the temperature on a day to day basis, what the hell makes you think our computer models will give reliable data on the world's state in 50 years?

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Weather models have never been accurate, in fact no self respectomg weatherman will tell you that the computers models are accurate. Data is collected based if historical information and sometimes they nail it and sometimes they don't. That's why you see all these meteorologists risking life and limb to help humanity predict the weather.

But we are not talking about this, we are talking about global warming and their data they have used. I'm sure both sides of the fence have asked themselves at some point "what if i'm wrong" but they still work to achieve a conclusion.

By the way most scientists do not use weather events as a platform to proclaim global warming. Only poeple I've seen using the weather as an excusse are tree hugging liberals like Al Gore.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Oh I have read about it and that is not the first time scientists have been caught red handed cherry picking information. Problem is that the people who stole this data is also cherry-picking so there is not much ground to stand on and choose a side to believe in. One side is trying to convince the other side that the other guy is lying to us.

Come on Lewis you can do better than this, Global warming is a conspiracy just because some hackers and Fox news said so, say it.. SAY IT!

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

The person stole emails, many of which are very damning whether they're cherry picked or not.  You know, like the ones talking about dodging FOIA requests, the ones talking about how they cherry picked data to support their already drawn conclusion, how they blackmailed journals, etc.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Iv'e never heard of cherry-picking. What does that mean?

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Pick from bits of data so that it supports what you want it to say, even if the whole set doesn't.

 

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

It's not that ALL of the emails are damning, it's that a vast majority of emails aren't really about anything at all.  Most of them are about personal stuff, or responses to other emails, you know, the average email.  The "cherry picked" ones are the ones that actually discuss scientific and legal wrongdoing.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Ahm, they never dodged a FOIA request, their country does not have them.

Politically motivated FOIA requests are annoying in the scientific community.  Data is time consuming and expensive to gather.  Being asked to give it up though non-scientific channels is like asking companies to give up thier patents.  Makes sense from the outside, but really frustrates those who actually put the work in.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

I'm sorry, what was that?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_Kingdom)

Yes, they're annoying, but they're also important.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Britain does have FOIA.  It says so in one of the emails.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

So you are saying that I sould believe information that was obtained illegaly because that information in itself is illegal.

You're kidding me right.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

I'm saying that East Anglia already confirmed the emails to be genuine, and the real question is why someone had to hack into their server when these researchers are bound by the FOIA.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Read my post again. Even if the information is legit it was obtained by illegal methods. Is this how you want global warming to be debuunked? Next thing you're gonna tell me is that you want the crooks to be exonerated of the crimes they commited.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

It was obtained by illegal methods after the scientists refused to reveal it by legal methods, and it has become fairly obvious that we would never have gotten it through any legal means.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

What makes you think that? Dude, you are very close to suggest that crminal acts are "ok" as long as it serves that person's purpose. That language is very close to eco-terrorism. You are starting to walk on thin ice my friend.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Well, you're implying that East Anglia's illegal methods are fine and the hacker's isn't.  You're basically ding the same thing you're accusing AL of.

---

He was dead when I got here.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Don't put word in my mouth son, if you think I am condoning any illegal act you're dumber than I thought. I am talking about someone who commited a crime base on a hunch or a belief. These people stole this data and published it and even if the other side also commited a crime (wich I do not condone) is at fault it doesn't mean that this guys is a hero. Well maybe for lunatic fringe but not on the eyes of the law. If both go to jail.. So be it.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Well, that's the problem.  The only people anyone's even considering arresting are whomever hacked East Anglia.  However, when you take it into context, they aren't the bad guys in any way.  In America, we have laws ALLOWING hacking of this nature to expose a crime or coverup, both of which happened by the hands of "scientists" at East Anglia.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

You're right one thing.. It's the LAW. The heckers BROKE the law US and eurpoe have laws against it. Or you thought that this was done in conjection law enforcement. If things pann out like the fringe wants the hackers and the scientists will be sharing jail cells. I can see it now, geeks trying to shank each other during lunch or at the yard.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Umm that's not the way it'll turn out.  If the people who are incensed by global warming get their way, this will all be swept under the rug, and the hacker will be arrested.  And don't tell me that isn't the way it'll turn out, considering Copenhagen is still going on, and NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THIS.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

Ummm besides Fox news nobody is talking about this because the stuff Fox has come out with has ben hand-picked. They are the only ones making a big deal out of this and do you know why? Fox is filled with right wing nutjobs who have brought similar arguments about the global warming being a myth.

To spare you some time the AP and several scientists have combed through the 1,037 e-mails that have been "exposed" and apparently there is no evidence that these scientists are fabricating any data. Yes there are points in wich they have casted doubts on their research, something ALL scientists have done at certain point in their researches but there is no climate-gate pseudo conspiracy.

Now I bet you're gonna come with the "sweeping under the rug" argument but let me ask you something, what prove do YOU have about this? I don't fully blelieve in the global warming argument and yet you don't see me yelling conspiracy to any argument brought against it.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

I noticed how you don't mention the source code for East Anglia's programming.  If you did, you'd shut the fuck up, because the programmer left comments in specifically stating that the numbers since 1970 are artificially higher than mean temperatures recorded.  What's your argument against that?  You don't have one, because you can't argue with source code.

www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/about-that-cru-hack.html

www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

This program taints all of the CRU data and, by extension, all data and programs using CRU data.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

It's more like a few fraudulent reports, repeatedly manipulating the numbers, and resorting to basically blackmailing scientific and academic journals to suppress dissenting opinions.  

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

It's a fun read.

By the way, when one portion of an experiment is manipulated fraudulently, IT FUCKS UP THE RESULT.  So, you know, when they manipulated, repeatedly, the data concerning the temperature in the past, then got rid of the original, non-'corrected' data, they basically made every result and every conclusion drawn thereafter fraudulent.

It boggles my mind that the same people who can't tell you the weather tomorrow think they know what climate is going to do for the next hundred years.  Especially when those people are continuously wrong, and the sources of their data are either frauds (like the East Anglia crew and co.) or have to continuously 'correct' their data (NASA).  Oh, and especially when you consider that these people have a huge interest in continuing the charade.

EDIT

You also forgot how they repeatedly talk about dodging Freedom of Information Act requests, even saying they'll go so far as DELETING the data and emails rather than let it be reviewed.  Yeah, that's some good science right there.

Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

The fact the emails are getting any attention at all is kinda sad.

It is a non-event for anyone who has actually worked in scientfic research.  This whole thing reminds me of those people who take some random wording from any old NASA person as proof that they are hiding aliens, or keep picking apart quotes to prove the moon landing was faked.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician