Why isn't San Francisco/Bay Area as desirable as Southern California? (Exeter: rental, home)

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

That's how every thread in the the SF-Oakland forum ends up.

This is one of the most curious statements ever heard here. Most threads are about visiting/living/renting/working; and frankly most are answered straight forwardly.

Such an odd statement. I am perplexed.
.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by beb0p

Why don't YOU post the data and do a city by city comparison?
.

beb0p: "I don't accept mrsantamonica's data because it doesn't satisfy my own requirements."
exeter: "Okay, so why don't you provide better data that satisfies you and we can all learn more from?"
beb0p: "Noooorh! You need to do all the work and find data to satisfy me!"

You know how ridiculous that sounds?

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by beb0p

This is one of the most curious statements ever heard here. Most threads are about visiting/living/renting/working; and frankly most are answered straight forwardly.

.

I present you Exhibit A:

Originally Posted by beb0p

Is there some LA propaganda campaign that you're a part of?
.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

beb0p: "I don't accept mrsantamonica's data because it doesn't satisfy my own requirements."
exeter: "Okay, so why don't you provide better data that satisfies you and we can all learn more from?"
beb0p: "Noooorh! You need to do all the work and find data to satisfy me!"

You know how ridiculous that sounds?

Shooting the messenger much?

It's curious. The OP intentionally presented falsified data, made an offensive point... and you are firmly on her side.

Me, I pointed out where the data is flawed; you think I'm in the wrong. And you want me to do all the leg work. In other works, the person who pointed out the fallacy is made the guilty party.

C'est la vie.
.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by beb0p

It's curious. The OP intentionally presented falsified data, made an offensive point...

That's called "trolling"

and you are firmly on her side.

That's called "envy"

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

I present you Exhibit A:

Tell me something...

Why is Beb0p more intelligent than ExeterMedia?

And while you're at it, also answer this:

Why are so many more people prefer San Francisco to Los Angeles?

And this:

Why do so many people prefer apples over oranges?

Answer me.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

That's called "trolling"


That's called "envy"

Uh, I see. Now it makes perfect sense.
.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by beb0p

It's curious. The OP intentionally presented falsified data, made an offensive point... and you are firmly on her side.

Me, I pointed out where the data is flawed; you think I'm in the wrong. A
.

Ooooh really?

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Okay. How do you explain the data that mrsantamonica has
posted when it comes to high end home sales?

It clearly shows that at the high end, Los Angeles tops SF in
terms of actual sales. I have no bone in this "fight" between
you two, but you seem to be dismissing the data he's posted
without actually addressing it. Can you actually address the
sales data he posted?

Originally Posted by beb0p

I've already said it is not useful data, it's missing the time-frame that it was gathered, missing the defined area (what is San Francisco exactly? Does it include the South Bay? East Bay? Camel? Marin County? It does't looks like it), and missing a link that I can trace back to the source. Without the relevant information, I have to guess what the data is saying, and I don't do that.

mrsantamonica's data says SF has 33 sales of 5 millions or more; but I counted over 50 if you include suburbs outside of SF proper (not including the South Bay and beyond), so I have no idea where he/she is getting the data and what the data really mean

.

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

So why don't you present useful data to add to the conversation?

If you have better data, then I think anyone reading would love to
see it. A year by year, city by city comparison?

That is if you can stop with the ad hominem attacks and snark
remarks about propaganda campaigns.

Now where did I say anyone was "wrong"? Oh, can't find where I said that? That's right, it wasn't me who said the data was "not useful", that was you.

Originally Posted by beb0p

The OP intentionally presented falsified data,
.

The onus is on you to 1) Show how he falsified data, and 2) Provide better data. It's ridiculous to ask someone to prove your own claims for you, totally lazy.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

I present you Exhibit A:

You know ad hominen, but that seems to be the extend of your logical knowledge.

Lookup: Begging the Question.
.

[ExeterMedia]

So I guess you've given up on explaining how the OPs data was falsified (your claim), and finding data that proves his data is not accurate or "useful" (your claim)?