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.
Since when did silicon valley equal sf, last time I checked the internet was not invented in Sf. This isn't about silicon valleys influence in america, which is great, but still not second. We are talking SF, which has zero influence on anything in this country besides whacky liberal politics, and has almost no relevance to most people west of modesto.
I love how when people try to talk about SF's influence they have to latch on the bay area (ie the other 90% of the population of the metro).
By the way star wars was created by George Lucas who grew up in Modesto, not the bay area. He simply owns a home in SF that is all. Star wars was not filmed in SF.
Just another example of how little clout sf has hah, trying to claim george lucas.. you wish...
Since when did silicon valley equal sf, last time I checked the internet was not invented in Sf. This isn't about silicon valleys influence in america, which is great, but still not second. We are talking SF, which has zero influence on anything in this country besides whacky liberal politics, and has almost no relevance to most people west of modesto.
I love how when people try to talk about SF's influence they have to latch on the bay area (ie the other 90% of the population of the metro).
By the way star wars was created by George Lucas who grew up in Modesto, not the bay area. He simply owns a home in SF that is all. Star wars was not filmed in SF.
Just another example of how little clout sf has hah, trying to claim george lucas.. you wish...
Where in SF is Lucas' house, genius?? He lives in Marin, and has as long as he's been relevant to the film industry. That's where Skywalker Ranch is located. Lucasfilm IS LOCATED IN THE PRESIDIO IN SF, smart guy!! That is the base of operations for not just Star Wars, but Indiana Jones, National Treasure, Transformers, etc. (Spielberg's office is there too). No one said Star Wars was filmed in SF; it was only pointed out that George Lucas was here in regards to influence that SF has had. Plenty of movies have been filmed in SF, but none were listed b/c movies are filmed all over the country, and that is immaterial. Nice try tho, buddy!
And Silicon Valley has ALWAYS been part of the SF Bay Area, which is what I used as my example in talking about relevance. If you're going to quote me, then do it correctly. My original words regarding this were:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
I don't know about it being second behind NYC, (LA beats it out w/o a doubt), but it definitely is significant in terms of influence. But I'd vote for the Bay Area as a whole when talking about how much influence has come from here.
The SF Bay Area as a whole has had a lot of influence over many various aspects of American culture/counter culture. Probably a lot more than most people realize.
And I have continued to speak on the region as a whole, so WE were not just talking about the City of SF here, YOU were. Alone, it does not have nearly as much influence now as it once did, but it still has plenty of relevance to a lot of people. There are plenty of people beyond Modesto who find it significant in their lives, and that's not going to change just b/c some out-of-towner who hates it says it doesn't effect them.
If you think SF has no influence at all, maybe you should consider how many states are currently dealing with their legalization of gay marriage, and then think back to where it was legalized first (nm the fact that that has since been undone). I would call that "influence." I suppose you would simply dismiss that as "wacky liberal politics" since it came from SF, but if Chicago had done it first you'd be claiming it. Lol pathetic!
If you hate San Francisco, which you obviously do, then fine. But don't get all butt hurt when other people think highly of it, and don't flip out when people speak on the city and the region interchangeably. The entire Bay Area functions as a whole, and SF's 47 square miles are not enough to contain all that goes on in this place. I've always viewed the entire Bay as my home, as do many people who are from here (not speaking on transplants).
But get it right, b/c I never said that SF held that much influence by itself over the country, and to claim that so much influence came from within its diminutive city limits and not even a quarter mile outside of them would be ridiculous. It's airport doesn't even lie within the city limits! But small as it may be, and insignificant as you seem to want it to be, it has been a very important place in California's and America's history, and it has had plenty of influence over the years. Presently, I feel that much of it's influence lies in the greater metro area rather than within city limits. But the city itself is still relevant. Sorry to break it to you.
You can refute that as easily as I can claim that Chicago is nothing but a desolate armpit of the Great Lakes surrounded by nothing but cornfields.
Well Chicago is surrounded by cornfields (and soybeans), why would you think that's bad? (I do get your point by the way) The Illinois prarie is fecund and has a granduer about it, I like it.
WARNING: personal attacks, poking, prodding, and name calling will not be tolerated. Clean it up, debate, but fur will fly if some of the behavior doesn't chill a bit. THANK YOU.
Well Chicago is surrounded by cornfields (and soybeans), why would you think that's bad? (I do get your point by the way) The Illinois prarie is fecund and has a granduer about it, I like it.
I don't think Chicago is bad at all in reality. Just trying to point out how easily belittling it would be, only focusing on and exaggerating negatives the same way the other poster had done with SF. Glad you at least got my point. I haven't experienced the Illinois prairie myself so I can't really speak from experience, but I don't doubt that it has its own special charm about it.
I don't think Chicago is bad at all in reality. Just trying to point out how easily belittling it would be, only focusing on and exaggerating negatives the same way the other poster had done with SF. Glad you at least got my point. I haven't experienced the Illinois prairie myself so I can't really speak from experience, but I don't doubt that it has its own special charm about it.
Great post. However, if you do ever come here to experience Chicagoland, you might want to change your expectations. Chicago isn't surrounded by prairie at all; that is a myth. The closest farms are maybe 50 or 60 miles out, in Aurora, or way down south of I-80 in Central Illinois.
That's farms. As far as actual prairie, I don't even know where you could find that. There is a rail-trail in the western burbs called the Prairie Path. I guess that's close?
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.
