KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 the Microsoft campus sure has fucked up some pristine NW wilderness area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 According to friends in the area not one of the 'Street of Dreams' houses were able to sell. Second or third tier real estate offices were now attempting to sell the units as the original tier one offices couldn't make any sales. My first thought was fraud when I heard about this. Mine as well. From the PI Hoffman said fire officials told him a fourth house was spared because an arson device inside it didn't go off. That house, Seattle Home Design's La Belle Fleur, recently went pending with a buyer, and would have been the first of the five to sell, he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Maybe you guys should burn it for me, that way I can collect the insurance money. Then we can blame it on eco-terrorists. Apparently, that's the way to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 My house is purple. And no, it's not a 4,400 sqft mcmansion hastily erected in a rural community in an effort to squeeze more money out of a dying housing market at the expense of the environment and society. So how many people live your house? I'm planning to burn down my home to erase this blight from the landscape, but then I'm going to need a place to live. Do you have an extra room? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 the Microsoft campus sure has fucked up some pristine NW wilderness area. Sure has. My father worked for MS before they even had a campus. I remember when the first four buildings were put up in Redmond. It's totally crazy how much Redmond/Woodinville have changed. Oh Noes! I don't feel sympathy for the developers who are going to recoup the losses of their multi-million dollar McDonald houses!! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? I MUST BE ONE OF THOSE ECO-TERRORISTS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 My house is purple. And no, it's not a 4,400 sqft mcmansion hastily erected in a rural community in an effort to squeeze more money out of a dying housing market at the expense of the environment and society. So how many people live your house? I'm planning to burn down my home to erase this blight from the landscape, but then I'm going to need a place to live. Do you have an extra room? Nope, we're all stocked up on crazy. You're right, resisting urban sprawl is wrong. After all, we've already fucked the planet, why stop now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 I just threw a brick through a Starbucks window. You can thank me later for changing the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 "I'd burn it. Burn it ALL!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 You're right, resisting urban sprawl is wrong. After all, we've already fucked the planet, why stop now? easy to say, now that you've got yours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 You're right, resisting urban sprawl is wrong. After all, we've already fucked the planet, why stop now? easy to say, now that you've got yours Now that I've got my 4,400 sqft multi-million dollar mansion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 You're right, resisting urban sprawl is wrong. After all, we've already fucked the planet, why stop now? You're right, I am now inspired to resist it. So what size house should we set as the standard, above which all should be burned? Should we check to see if anyone's inside, or should we resist population overload also? I'm going to go slash SUV tires and key some Hummer doors tonight- anyone want to join? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 so, it's your idea of extravagance that rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 You're right, resisting urban sprawl is wrong. After all, we've already fucked the planet, why stop now? easy to say, now that you've got yours Observe the Washington resident bitch about what a nasty, sprawling, expensive shithole California is at the same time advocating the exact same development policies that turned it into a sprawling shithole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 You're right, resisting urban sprawl is wrong. After all, we've already fucked the planet, why stop now? easy to say, now that you've got yours Now that I've got my 4,400 sqft multi-million dollar mansion? this thread has gone beyond the 4400 sq ft mansion, has it not? from bemoaning urban sprawl (that would include 2000 sq ft family homes, would it not?) to the loss of childhood "secret places". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 You're right, resisting urban sprawl is wrong. After all, we've already fucked the planet, why stop now? You're right, I am now inspired to resist it. So what size house should we set as the standard, above which all should be burned? Should we check to see if anyone's inside, or should we resist population overload also? I'm going to go slash SUV tires and key some Hummer doors tonight- anyone want to join? OMFG, you're so off the sidewalk and into the weeds that I can't even see your head up yr ass anymore. I never said we should go around burning shit, and I never advocated violence as a solution to anything. I think I remember saying it was a pretty stupid demonstration. All I said was I don't feel any sympathy for the developers. You do, apparently? I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank. Maybe you can meet them halfway and comfort them. 8D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 So what size house should we set as the standard, above which all should be burned? Should we check to see if anyone's inside, or should we resist population overload also? this introduces a conundrum. who's house do you burn down first? the family of 5 in a 3000 square foot house, who are overpopulating the world, or the 1-2 occupancy, suburban yuppy or retiree 4000 sq ft mcmansion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 You're right, resisting urban sprawl is wrong. After all, we've already fucked the planet, why stop now? You're right, I am now inspired to resist it. So what size house should we set as the standard, above which all should be burned? Should we check to see if anyone's inside, or should we resist population overload also? I'm going to go slash SUV tires and key some Hummer doors tonight- anyone want to join? OMFG, you're so off the sidewalk and into the weeds that I can't even see your head up yr ass anymore. I never said we should go around burning shit, and I never advocated violence as a solution to anything. I think I remember saying it was a pretty stupid demonstration. All I said was I don't feel any sympathy for the developers. You do, apparently? I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank. Maybe you can meet them halfway and comfort them. 8D yeah, fuck those developers. trying to make a living and shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 It's too bad they didn't get the entire block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 fa·ce·tious adjective 1. joking or jesting often inappropriately 2. meant to be humorous or funny : not serious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 fa·ce·tious adjective 1. joking or jesting often inappropriately 2. meant to be humorous or funny : not serious an emoticon would have helped Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 When I heard this story on the radio, my only reaction was RIGHT FUCKING ON! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 You guys are right. You've made me see the error of my ways. I hope the developers use the insurance money to cut down some old growth to make room for more mansions. After all, everybody needs AT LEAST 4,000 sq ft in a new, gated development. It's in the bill of rights, or some shit. After all, it's JUST LAND! God wanted us to turn it into cities. And the poor developers! Man, they're just trying to feed their kids, and shit. Man! What a sad, sad tale. Sorry, little Timmy, daddy can't buy you that baseball glove you wanted now. Looks like you'll have to sell the house in Vail just to make payments on the Lotus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 All I said was I don't feel any sympathy for the developers. You do, apparently? I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank. Maybe you can meet them halfway and comfort them. 8D And the point of this thread- ELF is a bunch of phuckheads- expresses sympathy for developers...HOW? As for all else, look up "facetious". Oh wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 You guys are right. You've made me see the error of my ways. I hope the developers use the insurance money to cut down some old growth to make room for more mansions. After all, everybody needs AT LEAST 4,000 sq ft in a new, gated development. It's in the bill of rights, or some shit. After all, it's JUST LAND! God wanted us to turn it into cities. And the poor developers! Man, they're just trying to feed their kids, and shit. Man! What a sad, sad tale. Sorry, little Timmy, daddy can't buy you that baseball glove you wanted now. Looks like you'll have to sell the house in Vail just to make payments on the Lotus. so, you don't feel exactly the same way about new developments in say, Snohomish county, where 1700-2000 sq ft family homes are crammed onto 6000 sq foot lots - you know affordable housing for families? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Hey, Rob - what if the owners of the 4400 sq ft mcmansions are paying carbon offsets, you know, like Al Gore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.