This is the thread for Metecom to explain himself, his opinions, it would seem, being to controversial and volatile for MPSIMS.
Sheesh…If you’re going to start a thread and invite Metacom to post in it, you might at least spell his name right.
Whatever
I’d think, if he did want to explain further, he’d set up his own thread to do so.
Why not take it to email?
This is a lame Pitting. This Pitting would have to stay late after class just to fail.
“Controversial and volatile?” Hardly. It looks like **Metacom ** simply declined to participate in an extended hijacking of the thread.
For what it’s worth, I think the “irony” in the story is a little forced, as well. The church is knocking down the building in favor of parking, not because it’s not making them enough money. Maybe it’s a crummy thing to do - it sure seems like it - but ironic? Nah.
I’m with **Metacom ** on this one.
Maybe he’s just a stickler for the proper definition of “irony.”
Well, to be clear, I am not “Pitting” Metacom. My take is that he had enough to say in that other thread to hint at it, I was curious to hear his thoughts and so I set up this thread so that he could have a venue for those thoughts.
Hell, I’m the one who wrote it and I thought that “irony” was stretching it a bit. It was a reference to Annie’s comment that since it was rent controlled and not very profitable was a factor in the church’s decision.
What didn’t you understand? He didn’t feel that it was ironic that a church would rather make money than tear down housing?
That’s not ironic. Ironic would be tearing down the apartment building to put up a shelter for homeless people.
Heh, heh. That’s a pretty good one.
OK.
I think Neurotik’s use of the word “affordable housing” to describe ** Annie-Xmas**'s housing was misleading and mischaracterized the situation.
I think the phrase “affordable housing” is usually used to describe housing that’s intended to provide an low-cost rent for poor people. However, the reason Annie-Xmas could afford the place was not because the apartment complex was supposed to provide low-cost housing for poor people, but because she’d lived there for a long time and rent control had driven the price below the market value.
Perhaps if there wasn’t rent control, the apartment complex’s owner could have charged market rates for the rent and wouldn’t have sold the place to the church, but that’s obviously pure speculation.
With that in mind, I don’t think there’s any irony involved in a church purchasing land from a willing owner in order to expand their facilities. If the church was, say, trying to change zoning regulations so it could demolish a home that provided free housing for battered women, then yes, I’d say that would be ironic. As it is, it’s just a standard real estate transaction. Yeah, Annie-Xmas is gonna have to find a new living situation, and that’s certainly going to be a major inconveniance.
As I said in the MPSIMS thread, I really do wish her the best. I’ll go even further and state that I support efforts (public and private) to provide low-cost housing for the working poor–I just think rent control is the wrong way to accomplish that goal, and I don’t find any irony in the situation.
That’s my opinion. Others may feel differently. I’m not particularly interested in having a long, drawn out battle on such a subjective issue. So… Was Gulf War II an illegal war? Discuss. 
So…you hate affordable housing AND America, huh? 
Boy, and my pitting of dollar stores and storage lockers was closed as “fluff”.
Well, there are a lot of different possible takes on this:
[ol]
[li]It is not ironic within the strict definition of the word irony.[/li][li]It is not ironic because it is perfectly consistent with what we have come to expect from Christianity.[/li][li]It is not ironic in some weird “let the market decide, and what ever it decides is O.K.” way.[/li][/ol]
I am sure that there are other possibilities. The point is that I was not clear on what he was getting at, and when I asked for clarification I was directed to a post that seemed to indicate that the opinion to be expressed was to volatile for MPSIMS. While it is possible that I am seeing too much nuance here, I figured that I would open this thread in the forum that he seemed to think was best suited to express his opinion, as I wanted my curiosity satisfied
Other than the typo in the title, you could have fooled me.
I didn’t think my opinion was too volatile, per se, I just didn’t want to hijack Annie-Xmas’s MPSIMS thread. Friendly support, advice and expressions of sympathy belong there, not discussions on whether rent control and Christianity are good or evil.
I sure don’t see how. I have not flamed or insulted him at all. I simply opened this thread because (in reading that other thread) my interpretation was that this is where his opinion on the matter could be expressed the best. Is this so difficult to get?
Fair enough. Honestly, I was just trying to have my curiosity satisfied, and that was how I read your posts. I have no beef with you at all, so hope you don’t take it that way.
FTR, I tend to assume that any thread specifically mentioning another poster in the title is inteded as a pitting of that poster unless the OP specifies otherwise. Even without any insults or profanities, I got a real “You better explain yourself,” vibe off your OP, like you were just waiting for him to say the wrong thing before you jumped on him. Obviously, that wasn’t what you intended, but given the nature of the forum you posted in, I think it’s a fairly natural inference.