Qualifications for Verbal Discussion

[Evo]

Evo, I find that post rather insulting. This is a thread about how to form good discussions.

Ah, so when you are shown to be wrong, suddenly what you've been discussing becomes off topic? Where's the insult? You were telling people they weren't smart enough to pass a reading comprehension test, that's not insulting?

I was on topic, your OP was about reading comprehension.

 

[Evo]

The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location.

No, there is nothing in that first paragraph comparing anything to the past. They are only stating current conditions.

 

[Danger]

SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test". It isn't an IQ test, but a specific measure of how a person is likely to do in "scholastic" settings.

Thanks, Zooby. I knew what the acronym stood for, but misunderstood what its purpose is. I thought that it was similar to someone in grade 12 here taking 'Matriculation', or someone in Ontario, where I took my last schooling, graduating grade 13. ie: first year college equivalency passed through regular schooling or out-of-school testing.
Okay, I just scrolled down and saw that there are a bunch of posts after I started this one. Rather than try to catch up now, I'm going to post this and then come back.

 

[Evo]

BT, the wikipedia article was terribly written, I can see how you came to your conclusion, but it is too vague for anyone conclusion, which is why it can more accurately be anything as opposed to one thing. It's really too trivial to even be discussing, it really doesn't impact anything we were discussing in the car pet peeves thread.

 

[BicycleTree]

No, there is nothing in that first paragraph comparing anything to the past. They are only stating current conditions.

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..." That's the comparison; the sentence in question. With that clarification, back to the point under debate -- "The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location."

With respect to the perceived insult in your post, I feel that since we are currently questioning whether you correctly interpreted the sentence, my comment with respect to your reading comprehension is suspended. I would like to keep this as courteous as possible at least until resolution is reached.

 

[Evo]

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work

Did you stop to consider maybe they lived in a rural area, a farm? It doesn't say city, many people used to live in rural areas, small towns and farms which is where they worked.

 

[brewnog]

I would like to keep this as courteous as possible at least until resolution is reached.

That's very noble of you BT.
We wouldn't want this to degenerate into anything involving insults now, would we?


I'll tell you this now, you're not going to get resolution on this. The quote is ambiguous, but we all know what the actual situation is. Even Danger, and he's dumb as a stump...

 

[BicycleTree]

Did you stop to consider maybe they lived in a rural area, a farm? It doesn't say city, many people used to live in rural areas, small towns and farms which is where they worked.

But not the rich; the rich, the people who would go to the suburbs, were originally mostly urban, not rural. But the main point I made is still in the air at the moment--your move.

 

[Moonbear]

OMG! Since I left, this thread has grown to 5 pages long, and half of it going over that wikipedia definition. Here, I'll save you all the trouble. BT left out the very first sentence; the key sentence that provided the actual definition.

Suburbanization is a term used by many to describe the current residential living situation in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization

Additional definitions available support that the first sentence is the key sentence.

It is the process of lower-density residential, commercial, and industrial development beyond the central city. According to Berry and Kasarda it “is the enlargement and spread of a functionally integrated population over an increasingly wider expanse of territory” (1997,180).

http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landscape/urbansprawl/glossary.asp

refers to the movement of middle- and skilled working-class people into residential areas located some distance away from their paid employment.

http://media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html

The shift in population from living in higher density urban areas to lower density developments on the edge of cities.

http://www.wasd.k12.pa.us/district/curriculum/geography/geography_glossary.htm

Main Entry: sub·ur·ban·ize
Pronunciation: s&-'b&r-b&-"nIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
: to make suburban : give a suburban character to
- sub·ur·ban·i·za·tion /-"b&r-b&-n&-'zA-sh&n/ noun

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=suburbanization

The definition of suburbanization is as varied as the ways of measuring it. A common understanding of suburbs often refers to the white flight out of the inner cities during the 1960s and 70s. While geographers and sociologist have been interested in the variety of ways urban sprawl takes place, as a social problem, they have also been interested in the impact of urban sprawl on the environment. The effect of living in suburban areas has increased the tendency to build larger single dwelling homes as well as longer commutes to and from the central city has increased the use of raw materials, such as air quality and rural areas (Kahn 2000). Ironically, what makes suburban dwellers a concern for social scientist makes them a target for marketing and sales.

Measures of Suburban Growth

Jordon, et. al. (1998) in their paper entitled “U.S. Suburbanization in the 1980s” defined suburban or suburbanization as “the decentralization of population from the center of the urban place as measured by and exponential population density function. Suburbanization does not necessarily imply moving out of the political jurisdiction of the city; rather it is simply a movement away from the center of the city.” Viewing suburbanization as a gradient of density simplifies the measurement of suburbanization. They found that density gradients decreased as you moved away from the central city and proved to be a less cumbersome means of measurement than struggling with the location of political boundaries.

http://remotesensing.utoledo.edu/Student_website/Websites/Verls_site/A Marketing Problem 1.htm

Quite simply, suburbanization only means people are moving away from cities and into suburbs. Regardless of which interpretation one wants to use for that wikipedia article's second sentence, the first sentence is the important one. Historically, yes, suburbanization began with people moving out of cities and commuting to work in cities, and many still do. That was never a point of contention. The point of contention is that "many" is a vague term. Beyond that, even if you want to argue that "many" means "most" in that context, which it may or may not, what BT had been ignoring is that the rest work someplace else other than in the urban areas. It also does not necessarily indicate that people are working in the city closest to their suburb. Consider the household with two working professionals who live in a suburb of NYC. One of them commutes to NYC, and the other to Philadelphia; or one to NYC, and the other to Trenton, NJ, or to Newark, NJ. There are many cities that one can commute to from a suburb.

 

[BicycleTree]

Moonbear, the question is over the interpretation of the particular second sentence of the Wikipedia article because it reflects the ability of Evo and myself with respect to verbal comprehension. Jumping into the discussion at this late stage, you have missed this point.

 

[Evo]

But not the rich; the rich, the people who would go to the suburbs, were originally mostly urban, not rural. But the main point I made is still in the air at the moment--your move.

Many rich owned farms and ran small towns. Where are the rich mentioned? I love how you keep interjecting these completely irrelevant topics.

Not to mention, as I have previously stated, the article has no impact on the other thread.

BT, did you read that DOT study I posted? Or the other link Moonbear posted? Those both had relevant studies and statistics and proposals and plans that addressed busing. Did you bother to read them?

 

[Evo]

Moonbear, the question is over the interpretation of the particular second sentence of the Wikipedia article because it reflects the ability of Evo and myself with respect to verbal comprehension. Jumping into the discussion at this late stage, you have missed this point.

No, because she pointed out exactly what I did, you pulled it out of context. The first sentence is very important. Remember paragraph construction and topic from school?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Everything's double edged. However, in your case, we get the blunt or sharp edge depending on your purpose. I noticed how Chroot had to repeat a good point four times to you in the other thread.

No comment BT?

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, the question is over the interpretation of the particular second sentence of the Wikipedia article because it reflects the ability of Evo and myself with respect to verbal comprehension. Jumping into the discussion at this late stage, you have missed this point.

Nope, I actually sat here and read this entire discussion before jumping in. You want to challenge the interpretation of the second sentence, but you are doing so out of context of the first sentence. Interpreting the meaning of a sentence out of context is poor reading comprehension.

Did you miss this last part of my post, where I directly address the second sentence - the one you've been harping on for nearly 3 pages?

even if you want to argue that "many" means "most" in that context, which it may or may not, what BT had been ignoring is that the rest work someplace else other than in the urban areas. It also does not necessarily indicate that people are working in the city closest to their suburb. Consider the household with two working professionals who live in a suburb of NYC. One of them commutes to NYC, and the other to Philadelphia; or one to NYC, and the other to Trenton, NJ, or to Newark, NJ. There are many cities that one can commute to from a suburb.

Most is not synonymous with "all" as you were trying to use it.

 

[BicycleTree]

Quote from Wikipedia: "Those who lived in the city were increasingly poor, as the wealthy, who had lived there not too long ago, moved to these suburbs."

Before suburbanization, the rich were city-dwellers. In those countries where suburbanization has not yet happened, such as Egypt, the rich are still city-dwellers. I'm sure other articles can confirm this.

But this is a relatively minor point and it's off topic. (the other thread is also not the topic of debate) The main point which I have made, which is still in the air, is:

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..." That's the comparison; the sentence in question. With that clarification, back to the point under debate -- "The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location."

 

[BicycleTree]

Moonbear, the question is over what the "many" referred to in the sentence (which is not necessarily "most") refers to.

 

[BicycleTree]

No comment BT?

Yes, no comment until you explain what you mean. Please do so by PM because it does not belong in this discussion.

 

[Evo]

Quote from Wikipedia: "Those who lived in the city were increasingly poor, as the wealthy, who had lived there not too long ago, moved to these suburbs."

Before suburbanization, the rich were city-dwellers.

That has nothing to do with the first paragraph. The first paragraph is stating current conditions. Subsequent topics discussed in later paragraphs do not modify the first paragraph.

I have never lived in the city, I have always lived in the suburbs, most people living in suburbs right now probably never lived in the inner city. Which is what the first paragraph addresses, nothing else. Which makes your obsession with this wikipedia article make even less sense.

What does this have to do with whether or not under current conditions more bus terminals is a realistic solution to traffic congestion? According to the Department of Transportation, it's not.

 

[BicycleTree]

Why are you talking about the pet peeves thread?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, no comment until you explain what you mean. Please do so by PM because it does not belong in this discussion.

It certainly does belong in a discussion of reading comprehension.

However, I see I'm getting the blunt edge of your sword ("I don't understand.").

 

[BicycleTree]

At the moment, only one thing from the pet peeves thread is on topic: the interpretation of the second sentence of the Wikipedia article as your and my reading comprehension. If you want to bring more stuff in, I'd like to see a convincing argument for how it is on topic.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, Zooby, then let it wait. I don't remember the point you say chroot was making--I do recall that he kept thinking my claim was much broader than it actually was--but I'm not going to try to talk about several different things at once in the same thread.

 

[Evo]

Why are you talking about the pet peeves thread?

Because that has to do with the wikipedia post.

 

[BicycleTree]

Because that has to do with the wikipedia post.

I don't think it has much to do with the interpretation of the sentence in the wikipedia post. Are you going to prepare a response to the following?

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..." That's the comparison; the sentence in question. With that clarification, back to the point under debate -- "The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location."

 

[Moonbear]

Why are you talking about the pet peeves thread?

You introduced the discussion of the pet peeves thread by challenging the reading comprehension of those participating in that thread when you presented, as your example, the statement used in that thread.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, I am not going to discuss the topics of the pet peeves thread at the moment except in how they directly have impact on the meaning of the second sentence of the Wikipedia article, unless someone can give convincing reasons otherwise. And even if someone gives those reasons, I'm not going to discuss it until the second sentence of the Wikipedia article has been resolved. And Zooby's question has priority after that if he so wishes since he brought his question up first.

 

[Evo]

I don't think it has much to do with the interpretation of the sentence in the wikipedia post. Are you going to prepare a response to the following?

I already did.

Also, everyone seems to be in agreement that the commuting mentioned is open to commuting anywhere. You are the only one saying it can only be commuting back to the city. You're the only one trying to make the statement have only one true interpretation. Prove it.

I'm not going to discuss it until the second sentence of the Wikipedia article has been resolved

It's resolved as far as everyone is concerned, except you. Majority rules. End of dispute.

 

[BicycleTree]

I already did.

You did? News to me. The only thing I noticed was you talking about was how a minority of the rich would have lived in rural areas before migrating to the suburbs.

As to majority, I recall that I have one backer and one partial backer. But majority is hardly a valid way to settle debate.

Zooby, if you're there this would be a fine time to explain your point.

 

[Moonbear]

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..."

The full paragraph states:

Suburbanization is a term used by many to describe the current residential living situation in the United States. Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work. This has set the United States apart from many other countries where the majority of people live in urban areas.

In context, it becomes clear that the second sentence serves two purposes, however horrendous the grammar. First, it does set up a contrast between past and present; we can agree on that. That contrast is between "live where they work" and "live in the suburbs, commuting to work." In the past, they lived where they worked, possibly cities, as you argue. In the present, they live in suburbs and commute to work. The location of that work is unspecified. One cannot assume from the sentence that the location of the work now is the same as the location of the work previously, because the emphasis, provided by the first sentence, is on the location of where they live.

The second purpose of that sentence is to set up the premise for the contrast of America with other countries, which is elaborated in the third sentence.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And Zooby's question has priority after that if he so wishes since he brought his question up first.

I have no question. That was an observation about your modus operandi. When I asked for a comment, I just wanted to make sure you knew I noticed that you'd ignored it. The way you ignored Chroot's repetition of the same point four times in the other thread comes of as, well...a reading comprehension problem.