publicité
Cataclaw
-
Compteur de contenus
6 349 -
Inscription
-
Dernière visite
-
Jours gagnés
16
Type de contenu
Profils
Forums
Calendrier
Galerie
Blogs
Tout ce qui a été posté par Cataclaw
-
Voici le tracé de l'autoroute. Le troisième cercle sur l'image suivante, c'est là que j'ai croisé les travaux en cours! Selon l'MTQ, la première moitié de l'autoroute devrait être complété et prêt à utiliser en 2012 (approx 2 ans) et le reste en 2014.
-
I went to Burlington this weekend. On route 133, halfway to the U.S. border, i noticed A-35 construction in progress! Very happy to see this! The segment i saw seemed fully deforested, excavated and ready to receive asphalt! No work had been done on any overpasses though... This highway is going to shave 10-15 mins off the trip to Burlington! When A-35 is complete, it'll take just 1 hour 15 mins to get there! Woo!
-
Pourquoi ne pas construire des tours sur ces stationnements de surface, pour doubler la densité, et ensuite créer un gros stationnement étagé de 4-5 étages relié aux édifices par des passerelles! Encore mieux pour l'hiver! À mon avis, c'est juste un exemple parmis des centaines de possibilités plus interessantes!
-
C'est toujours bien de voir de la construction... mais je n'aime pas trop le style "banlieu" un peu daté de ce méga-projet. En effet, ca fait beaucoup de stationnements...
-
J'va y aller avec la famille
-
STM : Station de métro Champ-de-Mars
Cataclaw a répondu à un sujet de jesseps dans Projets oubliés et/ou en suspens
Merci pour le scoop jesseps! Tu peux être certain que je vais produire une proposition! Je vais travailler en collaboration avec mtlurb bien sur, en vous demandant des idées et vos opinions!! Ouaah ça va être le fun! -
Yes, and i maintain (as well as most people in this thread) that the Montreal cover is unusually and unnecessarily harsh, even when compared to previous Macleans covers. That includes the B.C. and Israel ones. So? I never brought up bias. I think the Montreal cover is a little extreme, but i don't propose that it's because of some sinister bias. What? Irrelevant. You're comparing "LaPresse calling Montreal politics a cancer" to "Macleans calling Montreal a disaster and a disgrace". The latter is unquestionably more harsh. Here was your exact quote "LaPresse called Montreal politics cancer and leDevoir had Mafia knocking on city's front door. The gist is the same." Again, the gist is not the same. It would be trolling indeed if what you provided was actual proof. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to qualifying (at least in my view). I asked you to show me something equally harsh but nothing you supplied was close to as bad as "disaster and a disgrace". Your B.C. headlines and what not don't come close to the severity of the Montreal headline. And my opinion is that words matter, and that trashing a city is inappropriate. Nobody's going to lose sleep over it, but it's still an inappropriate thing to do. Sadly, it's the sort of thing that sells magazines though... I find it sincerely intriguing that you would bear a skin so thin as to consider my response to your criticism of my humorous argumentation something malicious. So, my sarcastic witticisms are somehow "malicious" and hurt your feelings, yet you're the one decrying hypersensitivity and crybabyism. Really? ... ... ... Really? My Irony-dar just blew up. Didn't you say that already? Assuming you mean what you say this time, good riddance to this debate. Besides, we're both on the same page anyway, when you get down to it. You said it yourself, you agree with me that words matter, and i agree with you that Macleans sucks. Case closed! EDIT : And in honor of this debate being over, i propose we laugh about it over a beer at the next mtlurb meet.. because i just reread everything and actually laugh out loud. I can't believe how serious a tone this discussion took, when in reality this whole Macleans story is just a bunch of laughable bullshit. Macleans is laughable, their headline is laughable, and the exaggerated length of this arguing was laughable.
-
Why are you so angry? Geez, calm down buddy. I could say that in one paragraph, you've managed to childishly insult me by calling me unintelligent, not credible, dishonest and small. I could also say that whereas i've backed up my claims with rational arguments, you've just been dismissive and have failed to provide anything to the discourse. But i'll be the better man here and attack the core issue once again, in one final effort to help you understand: words are subject to interpretation and magazines on a magazine stand are subject to the same laws of perception that govern everything else that's thrown out there for us to consume. You may or may not be familiar with Macleans, you may find the cover cheesy, but the bottom line is not everyone shares your exact point of view. Making the casual insinuations you've made in the way you've made them is essentially rejecting all other viewpoints in favour of your perspective and yours alone. It's ignoring the fact that not everyone will see things the way you do. It's like being stabbed in the foot and deciding to ignore the flesh wound just because you have a genetic deficiency that gives you an abnormal pain threshold, and then looking around you and saying "what, doesn't everybody ignore stab wounds and just go about their daily business instead of going to a hospital?"
-
Now now, you wouldn't happen to be "hypersensitive" by any chance, would you? Well, it does sound like you're upset. Did i upset you with my little candid dose of truth? But how could that be? Like you say, words don't matter, right? Everything we say is.. you know, just kind of stirred around in the same pot, right? The gist is the same?
-
So you make claims about various headlines, don't provide any proof or sources, then criticize me when i compare two headlines? It goes both ways. If you're going to claim that people trash Vancouver and other cities equally hard, kindly supply proof. "Crime superpower" and "A disaster and a disgrace" are not in the same ballpark, GDS. They aren't even in the same league. Well i can only speak for myself. And i haven't read any unfavorable articles about Montreal. If you'd like to quote some that are equally harsh in their wording, kindly do so and i will be critical of them as well. This gist is not the same. Words matter. If i say "Montreal is mildly unpleasant due to problems" And if i say "HOLY SHIT MONTREAL IS A FUCKING DISASTER AHHH IT'S ALL BLOWING UP AROUND US, GOD WHAT A PATHETIC ROTTING PIECE OF SHIT DISGRACE" There's a difference. Language and communication. "Baby, i fell and bruised my arm. Does my arm look ugly now?" "Naw babe, it's just a small spot, it'll go away" vs "Baby, i fell and bruised my arm. Does my arm look ugly now?" "Wow, who let the ugly squad out? Holy shit is that a bruise or is that a cross between the grand canyon and the bottom of the dead sea? It'll go away eventually, when we die, possibly from having been exposed to the ugliness that is that bruise. Why are you looking at me like that baby? Are you nitpicking about the words i'm using?" Words matter. The gist is not the same. Period.
-
Okay, so you're saying that you equate "Toronto stinks" to "Montreal is a disaster and a total disgrace" Are you saying that they're equal in severity? Really? I love ROC, i support ROC, i'm a federalist, but this is bullshit. We're not being hypersensitive, you're being hyperlenient.
-
En espérant qu'après les élections la ville approuve le MacKay, que ça soit Tremblay ou Harel ou Bergeron...
-
Sara Champagne? Je dois faire confiance à Sara Champagne?! Si c'est elle qui est là pour rassurer, ça va mal en maudit.
-
Whoa whoa whoa... quoi? Je n'ai pas suivi toute cette histoire de corruption et d'incendie... Est-ce que ça veut dire que le 2-22 est annulé? Retardé? Et le projet d'Hydro? Quelles sont les trois constructions? This is bad news!
-
This picture is taken from just across the future MacKay site. As you can see, what a terribly homogeneous area. Just look at all those 3-storey victorian homes... and uh.. hmm. Those parking lots. And skyscrapers. And buildings of varying heights. Oh wait, that means the OCPM is full of shit! Well i didn't see that one coming. /But I digress. //Very nice photos!
-
Toronto stinks VS Montreal is a disaster, a total disgrace. "Stinks"? That's a very mild word, isn't it. The Montreal cover is 3x harsher than the Toronto one. The Montreal cover paddles its way into "inappropriate" territory. Bottom line : The article may have truth to it, but the sensationalism is terribly gross and we can do without it. The cover page is totally inappropriate and shameful.
-
Si au moins le tag aurait été en mandarin...
-
Je ne fais jamais ça moi... certains le font, oui, mais là tu généralises. Les idiots qui travaillent chez Macleans -- pas les anglais du ROC. Nuance... assez énorme.
-
Gorgeous! I can't wait to see this finished!
-
Interesting idea! Hadn't thought of that. Maybe they will! Hopefully they will!
-
Inquiètes toi pas Malek, c'est impossible de défendre ce qui n'est pas vrai. These guys are real clowns. Let's be rational here. Of course Montreal has problems -- in fact, a lot of them! -- but so does every town and city in the world. To call us a "disaster" and a "disgrace" smells of sinister motives and/or genuine hate behind the desks of Macleans writers. Either that, or they just want to sell magazines. Either way, it doesn't justify this kind of bullshit. For shame, Macleans.
-
Not all ROCers are lying douchebags like the folks at Macleans. I just thought i'd throw that out there. Most ROCers love Quebec and love Montreal. A small (but vocal) minority don't like us, but that doesn't mean we're genuinely hated everywhere. That's just silly. Now... all that being said... the folks at Macleans are among that minority. Seriously. What the fuck is this?! \/
-
It takes an hour to take a roller and paint over a wall -- not even. If the paint is supplied, i'll gladly roll up my sleeves and have fun painting a wall in the summer heat to some music playing on a portable stereo. Sounds like fun! I'd do it.
-
New building and graffiti already? Disgraceful. The guys that do this crap ought to be cockpunched. Artistic graffiti in places where it's appropraite? Sure. Murals? Absolutely. Generic tagging on a brand new building? Unacceptable. I have zero tolerance for disrespecting public and private property. If you want to do art, find a place to create a mural and get permission and funding to do it. If you want to tag, find a place where it doesn't bother anybody and it's totally out of the way. Don't. Do. It. On. People's. Property. This is an infuriating issue to me.
-
T'as volé les mots de ma bouche, Gilbert!
