🚀 go-pugleaf

Geoff Miller <geoffm@netgate.net> wrote:

>spp@cs.berkeley.edu writes (to Dave Simpson):

>> A lot of people were opposed to building the Golden Gate
>> Bridge in the first place; when it was finally approved,
>> the social contract was that it was to be a local connector,
>> not part of a through highway system.

>The concept of a "through highway system" as we know it today
>didn't even exist at the time.

So?

>> The people who you call "fools" are simply holding planners
>> to their original promises.

>The planners are long dead, and you may have noticed that the
>Bay Area, like the world at large, is a far different place
>than it was when the Golden Gate Bridge was completed in 1937
>-- let alone when it was first envisioned.

>Speaking of planners and their original promises, I understand
>that the toll for crossing the Golden Gate Bridge was supposed
>to have been abolished as soon as the bridge was paid for.  If
>you're really so reverent about holding the planners to their
>original promises, why don't you raise some hell about *that?*

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

>> And, by the way, do you even live in San Francisco?

>Objection, m'lud: argumentum ad hominem circumstantial.

>What if he doesn't?  That wouldn't make him wrong.  

It might indicate that he doesn't care about the negative
impact such a freeway would have on people who live in the
city.

> You're obviously grasping about for an excuse not to take what
> Mr.  Simpson says seriously without considering his words on
> their own merits.

You're the one grasping about.  Or flailing about, more accurately.

Try again.

Steve