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.
It doesn't matter, that was my point about you. You'd jump in and talk about sums/numbers/get excited your idol city has more than my borough. I don't think I said Brooklyn had more overall. Did I? No? Exactly. I'm surprised you didn't yell "The Bay Area has 2 so " That's quite unexpected. You're learning a bit to relax.
Facts > Preference/Subjectivity
I'm still waiting on how it's a "fact" that Brooklyn has better eats than SF. That's a new one to me... other than better Puerto Rican and West Indian food, I was under the impression that Brooklyn had a larger street fare scene and SF had a larger fine dining scene.
That's your opinion. Fashion isn't in writing there's no book for it. I'm simply stating it doesn't matter if you have every name brand in the book. You could have on Dolce And Gabbana and still look horrible. I really can't comprehend how you can look at someone and say 'hipster', that mentality is horrible.
Maybe because everything in that link other than #2, 5 and 15 was extra-typical hipster clothing? That could be why.
People say that because NYC has to be the best at eveytging and that's that. I find California cities to have better food, with logical reasons. Great diversity, massive ports, and year round crops. We're even #2 in livestock. To think that Brooklyn will be serving better food during the harsh winter months(they'll be importing more than ever right now, probably from us) is absurd.
So you are saying now that CA cities (you used plural I believe) have better food than NYC
your fellow CA lover am sure could most definately use the fancy Michelin to discredit this immeadiately but regardless (though would come with a spin am sure)
While not the totality of year round crops they do exist. On a massive port or diversity, do these not exist in NYC.
Ray while NYC does get too much credit at times on food or a lack of diversity that just isnt the case. I also think CA has great food but some of these suggestions really make me believe that many have not truly experienced both sides
SF is the best food city in Cali, NYC is the best food city in America. LA is an awesome food city but a NYC it is not
believe what you may but fresh foods, and very fresh foods are never an issue in the NE in the winter, nor are livestock produced 12 months a year locally all over the NE as well as fresh dairy. Want mushrooms etc they are most likely coming from PA there are agricultural aspects everywhere. CA has tremendous fresh items though a majority of items Cali grown are in fact mass produced
You like Cali foods better I get it, though most experts would disagree, I find both exceptional, I also find NYC the best
on your massive ports, riddle me this which city is the largest importer of perishable foods in the country, I can help this city also distributes more unique persihable foods to even Cali, ones that even cali cant produce
Please forward this to just about every single forumer whose posted on behalf of Brooklyn.
You silly goose, this whole thread (or mostly everything on C-D) is based upon your/everyone's preference and subjectivity.
Everything we're debating isn't in stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
I'm still waiting on how it's a "fact" that Brooklyn has better eats than SF. That's a new one to me... other than better Puerto Rican and West Indian food, I was under the impression that Brooklyn had a larger street fare scene and SF had a larger fine dining scene.
I didn't say that. I'm implying facts will always be greater than assumptions and opinions. In this case it's preferences. I may prefer Chinese Food, while you may prefer Spanish food. To me it's a preference, to love Chines food over Spanish Food. It can't be proven that Chinese food is better than Spanish food but because it's my favorite I'll always have it at the top.
That's what this site and threads are always about. People personal opinions and preferences. Nothing I can say or you can tell me about San Francisco will change our minds.
It's a fact that San Francisco is smaller than Brooklyn. It's a fact Brooklyn doesn't have large famous retailing like Louis Vuitton, but San Francisco does. It's a fact Brooklyn is more urban than SF. etc. Those are facts. That's what I was insinuating.
Last edited by StuddedLeather; 12-05-2011 at 09:32 PM..
The only 'fact' being debated here is whether Brooklyn completely destroys SF or merely wipes the floor with it under a hypothetical scenario where the other boroughs don't exist. Either way, under this scenario SF has a population similar to Baltimore, and Brooklyn has a population similar to Chicago. SF doesn't stand a chance, but it's fun to see the boosters try.
The only 'fact' being debated here is whether Brooklyn completely destroys SF or merely wipes the floor with it under a hypothetical scenario where the other boroughs don't exist. Either way, under this scenario SF has a population similar to Baltimore, and Brooklyn has a population similar to Chicago. SF doesn't stand a chance, but it's fun to see the boosters try.
Now you're using population as an argument? rofl. Somehow I doubt you'd willingly take the L from Los Angeles...
Anyway, there are multiple categories where SF wipes the floor with Brooklyn, vice versa and then there are a lot more categories where they're pretty much equal. That you see yourself as not one of the boosters in this debate is the hilarious part.
That's exactly what I'm saying, kidphilly. Sorry I don't drink the NYC koolaid everyone else does. I was expecting the mother of all eating experiences in 2006. What I got was--good. Nothing at all out of the ordinary, and not as good as eating in SF or LA. Weaker Chinese food than anything in the San Gabriel Valley or SF. Average sushi. Good pizza, but slme mediocre fare in Midtown as well. Certainly not what I was expecting given the praise the city gets for it's food. Like I said, NYC has to be #1 just because. It doesn't have the climate of truly great food cities in Italy, France or Mexico (or California) but it's still the best. Magical.
California is isn't just a fine agricultural state, it's the unholy beast of agricultural states.
You tell me how a non-fine dining establishment in Brooklyn, with a limited budget, is going to access all this stuff quicker than its counterparts in SF? It isn't, and it's ignorant to thinking that fresh ingredients don't matter.
The only 'fact' being debated here is whether Brooklyn completely destroys SF or merely wipes the floor with it under a hypothetical scenario where the other boroughs don't exist.
But that's just it. Its actually impossible for Brooklyn to win as an independent city as is, vs San Francisco. Without Manhattan, nobody takes you seriously. Sorry.
As if population has no bearing on why Brooklyn beats SF overall - something about California makes people denser, perhaps the lack of nutrients in their 'picture perfect' produce is to blame. This whole argument is funny since it really forces the SF homers to bend and twist their reality to make it fit a narrative that is blatantly false. No point in speaking truth to the foolish, so good night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
Now you're using population as an argument? rofl. Somehow I doubt you'd willingly take the L from Los Angeles...
Anyway, there are multiple categories where SF wipes the floor with Brooklyn, vice versa and then there are a lot more categories where they're pretty much equal. That you see yourself as not one of the boosters in this debate is the hilarious part.
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.
" That's quite unexpected. You're learning a bit to relax.
